User Testing
A fantastic tool for getting both fine grained detailed feedback, but also qualitative feedback for more abstract factors such as art direction of imagery.
Design Process is a tricky thing. Potentially, it's a balancing act between an incredibly strict and structured process - with tasks well documented, employing automation where necessary and tasks easily handed around between the team.
But there is no one size fits all solution. Squeezing the creative freedom out of a project can result in cookie cutter websites. Thats why a healthy balance of the two is essential - with flexibility in the process itself to acommodate for varying client or project types.
Discovery, design kickoff, requirements gathering, initial chats or whatever you want to call it - having an opportunity to ask essential questions is vital and needs to be done as early as possible.
One of the most important things to establish early on is who the project stakeholders are - and who is ultimately going to be signing off designs. Making sure you're presenting designs to that person directly ensures minimal red tape and a more stress-free path to signoff.
Feasability considerations should be factored into every design decision made throughout a project. Whether this is done by a designer versed in the more technical side of things, or by involving developers directly during design reviews - it's essential to make sure clients are only presented with what is technically possible within the previously agreed scope, managing expectations and maintaining the health of the project overall.
Establishing what the objectives are, both from the client and internally as a business, needs to considered early on. Is the client trying to achieve a specific KPI or performance metric? If so, the process can be tweaked to help them achieve that. Likewise, internally why are we doing this project? Is it because they're a big name in their industry? In which case the loses incurred by tweaking our process can be afforded. Or are they more of 'bread and butter' type of client that need to have their expectations managed more carefully?
Naturally, setting out and meeting milestones is an essential part of keeping things on track. A crucial part of that however is (within reason) preventing more changes to something previously signed off, once that milestone has been reached. Otherwise, you run the risk of getting caught in an infinite feedback loop and the project drags on forever.
Comparing a clients potential future site to their competitors, whether that's their branding, layout or information hierarchy is a fantastic thing to render visually through a moodboard - establishing something visual and interactive to structure the conversation around.
Interactivity is a great way to get someone engaged about their upcoming new site. Whether this takes the form of microinteractions referenced from other sites, click through prototypes in Figma or HTML CodePens quickly put together online - having something a client can physically interact with is a great way to keep them engaged and drive feedback.
Wireframes give a taste, a flavour of what their site can be in terms of page and content layouts. How barebones they are depends on the project at hand. You can only glean so much from grey boxes before you have to consider the specific content that will be in their place.
This is what a lot of the prior processes have been leading up to - to provide the foundation of well crafted, high quality designs. These designs take time - and changes to them do too. Thats why that foundation is so important to establish beforehand. In a perfect world, by this stage the only feedback you get is small, quantitative and easily actioned.
All feedback is important. As a designer it's essential not to become too silo'd or protective of a project. It's far too easy to become blinkered to the best solution to a problem, so its important to inject criticism and feedback from relevant stakeholders wherever possible.
Often during design reviews with clients - but often internally too - it's far too easy for those giving feedback to get carried away, and take the conversation down an unproductive cul-de-sac. Naturally people want to feel involved and their opinions heard but ultimately feedback isnt particuarly useful if its talking about something that doesn't exist or isnt going to happen.
A fantastic tool for getting both fine grained detailed feedback, but also qualitative feedback for more abstract factors such as art direction of imagery.
A great way of collecting data, for example, through Analytics to give a design idea a more scientific justification, helping to convince stakeholders of a given change.
Naturally vital for any polished product - testing for bugs on as many different browsers, systems and devices as possible
Like with AB testing, UAT provides for a more scientific basis to determine that a site does everything its supposed to do and can go live.