Most design processes include three rounds of revisions as standard. It sounds reassuring – like you're getting more for your money. In practice, it can mean the opposite. When clients know there are three rounds, they hold back in the first. When designers know there are three rounds, they present work they're not quite ready to defend. The result is a process that drags, and a final outcome that's a compromise between too many versions of the idea. The best projects I've worked on had fewer rounds, not more – because we spent longer getting the brief right before anyone opened a file.

The revision culture in design has its roots in a reasonable idea: clients should be able to shape the work. But somewhere along the way it became a feature – something to advertise, a signal of flexibility. Three rounds of revisions sounds like you're getting three bites at the apple. What you're actually getting is permission to defer the hard thinking.

The hard thinking is: what do we actually want this to do? What does good look like? What are we willing to give up to get there? These questions are much easier to answer before anything has been designed than after. Once there's something on the screen, the conversation shifts from strategy to aesthetics. You're reacting instead of deciding.

A tighter process starts with a longer conversation. More time understanding the brief, the audience, the constraints. Then a first presentation that's ready to be judged, not explored. Then a focused round of changes based on clear, agreed criteria. Then done.

Fewer rounds. More thought. Better outcome. You can see how this approach works in practice on the Webflow and branding process pages.