Search:
Design Debate - A Fine Press
20692
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20692,single-format-standard,edgt-core-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,hudson child-child-ver-1.0.0,hudson-ver-1.6, vertical_menu_with_scroll,smooth_scroll,woocommerce_installed,blog_installed,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12,vc_responsive
Feb 11 2016

Design Debate

I recently had the pleasure of seeing Aaron Draplin speak (a few times in one day). It confirmed to me that he’s a designer of integrity and generosity. It was an incredibly motivating, humbling experience and I’m daily working on the lessons I learned.

And, while we’ve not had the pleasure of meeting, I’ve gotten to know James Victore through his work with Burning Questions, among other things. I’ve learned a great deal about design and life and I’m confident that the same could be said of him – he works with integrity and generosity.

These men love what they do and have a sincere respect for the people who pay them to do it.

But they’ve reached (pretty much) diametrically opposed positions on how to present work to clients.

It’s something I wrestle with:

Do you provide the client options and include them in creating a solution or do you simply provide the solution?

In other words:

One option or multiple options?

And I wish I could have these two men in the same room – or at least in real-time conversation – to discuss this.

I feel that, much like politics, the different approaches largely stem from shifts in how one views the world. I want to know what that is. Because, on the stuff that matters? They seem pretty similar to me.

So I’m deeply interested in where the difference is. What makes two passionate, caring men reach quite dissimilar conclusions on the same subject?

What do you say, gentlemen? Up for a discussion?

0 Comments
Share Post