Yes, hear! hear!

I second the motion! And for designers there's: http://www.no-spec.com/

Yeah, I have been guilty on both sides of this issue.

I guess it is the good project manager who can articulate the vision, and it's the good designer who can draw that vision out early on.

well i gotta say i disagree :-)

many times i have briefed in creatives for many sites over the years - and its rare that a designer of even the best skill hits it first time. also - i want a designer to think outside the box.

the best designers i have worked with are the ones who can present several options very quickly. i am not asking for a fully spec'd design up front. just options.

indeed in my briefs now i specify varied personas, alternate journeys and brand positions to give designers guidance.

then the decision process is still agile, and collaborative - including the designer.

my view is that a "focus group of one" is just as bad as "design by committee".

You are absolutely correct. If I as a manager have 100% understanding of the audience I'm communicating with and the message I have, and am able to communicate with perfect clarity exactly what we're trying to accomplish, and the designer digests all of it, and then nails it on the first try, then comps are unnecessary.

Unfortunately, in 20 years of working both as a designer and as a client, I've never seen that in the real world. I don't have 100% understanding of the space, because by the time I gained that much understanding the space would have evolved already. I'm also not able to perfectly communicate the 40-70% that I do know. And the creative process is exactly that--creative.

There are some things that you can only discover together, through an iterative design process. Yes, I'm going to push back on a color if it doesn't feel right, and I expect the designer to argue her case. Yes, I'm going to make suggestions about moving things around, not because I'm a better designer (not even close), but because that conversation will result in a more effective piece. That very conversation is part of the communication process between myself as the client and my designer.

In the end it's about communicating the right message to the audience; it's not about design. The design needs to help clarify the message, and I have found that working together through multiple iterations is the most effective--and efficient--way to get the best results.

Although the premise is true, it's unlikely for people in the PR business with clients wanting a Web site, possesses no knowledge of making one (so requires a clairvoyant, us) and has high expectations.

For those folk (and there are MANY), a comp is your best friend - for both sides. If we can show one, then we have a happy client. If you can make one, you have a client that will use you ad nauseum.

It's one of those necessary evils, namely when working and representing churches. Pastors have visions, PR folk gives them focus. If not, their staff will have delusions... and that's never pretty for all parties involved.

I have to disagree too... hard to say from a designer's point-of-view.

A couple of quick points:

1) You are assuming that the client knows what they want - meaning, they can't give you all the information that you need to come up with just one idea. How many times have we all heard "I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it." So if the client doesn't like your option do you walk away from the client and the client's money, or go back with a little more direction (and billable time).

2) I remember one of the best exercises by design instructor gave us when working on a logo was to start sketching out ideas and then a few minutes later, he would tell us switch directions in our line of thought - go in a totally different direction. This stimulated the creative stuff rattling in our head.

3) We'll there's goes the idea of a brain-storming session. Obviously one person has the best idea and nobody else needs to show up. Who should be in the brain-storm group is another topic, but I don't mind missing the occasional meeting myself.

In all, I want the best design to come out. The best way to communicate 'effectively' without sacrificing design - that's the goal. How many times as designers do we look back at old work and go "What was I thinking?!?" Single comps may not always be the option.

Wow. Most of the comments above assume that the design piece will actually work in the market place or outreach.

Once the creative quibble has subsided and design is approved, the product is STILL NOT 100% sure fire bet. A versatile comp piece is a nice place to go back and explore when the audience doesn't respond well to the elder approved "MIAMI VICE" color palette or organic design. It's nice to save time by revisiting some original thought points without having to recreate the creative outputs all over again.

Designing two or three ROUGH comps is a way to get communications flowing between designer and client. In my experience, most clients don't know what they want but when they see it they know what they like and don't like. Designing several is part of the process.

I have briefed designers for about 25 years now. Some in traditional areas [like the BBC], some radical [you can guess these]. I also paint draw and design myself.

What I like to have [demand of all designers who work for me] is three ideas [comps]. Of those I want one wild off the wall idea and one they like and one they think I will like.

In 25 years I think that I cannot predict which one of the three will likely be the winner.

Presented with a choice of one option, its 'take it or leave it'. Most times I leave it. Want the job... offer options... this ISN"T a closed market place. So. Forget the idea 'No more comps' it just won't work and would hamper the creative process.