graphic designers sometimes ship their draft deliverables with 1 or 2 obvious bugs, and allow the customer to recommend these 'changes' on their own for final delivery. and if they don't, they're just fixed for final delivery anyway.
i read about it before i had this done to me for the first time, and i played along with it. it's a neat trick because it's plausibly deniable for everyone involved and the outcome is good while minimizing the bullshit work in favor of a sacrificial final word.
I've done this in hardware design, presented a design for review with a problem that had already been discovered and had a fix in progress. It was a red herring that gave the customer something to latch onto and feel like they were contributing to the success of the project. Somewhat dishonest, yes, but very effective in getting customers to work with you rather than be adversarial.
There is a concept of a sacrificial feature to prevent customers from becoming fixated on other aspects of the design that would actually create problems if changed. I prefer to avoid that sort of dark pattern though because it erodes trust.
Yes, but more importantly, it solves the problem of ritualistic feedback, which is very common. People think it’s their job to produce suggestions no matter if they have any or not. This gives people license to provide harmless feedback while adhering to the religious framework.
Code reviews is a great example of this, of course. You’re supposed to comment something, otherwise how will people know that you are smart and did your job? Famously, the most straightforward code changes always gets some comment to change something stylistic or menial.
This was known as adding a 'duck'. It is unfortunately very helpful when your client stakeholder doesn't value your expertise as much as they should. It works for web design too, but you must be careful that your duck doesn't become a feature!
This is a weird thing to tie to graphic designers. Just because you noticed a graphic designer doing that doesn't mean it's a thing that's more commonly practiced among graphic designers than any other trade.
The reason is most people can tell red from green and big from small, and most people use graphic designs daily, so will have an opinion on whether a design element should be bigger or redder.
Other professionals with a similar plight could be copywriters, and devs when selling a PR.
I am a professional graphic designer. Presenting with obvious defects to fix before shipping is not common practice. In any serious design engagement, the client would probably just be confused about why something changed after approval and it would lead to an unnecessary meeting. On top of that, I'd probably end up having to revert to the shittier version they agreed on and waste time re-packaging the deliverable. Purposefully using up contractually allocated revisions with deliberate flaws, while very difficult to prove, is essentially fraud. If the graphic designers you patronize do that, get new ones.
What do you do when it doesn't work? This seems like a really bad outcome - they approved the design with the glaring flaw, which makes it hard for you to remove it, and they potentially also requested some other 'improvement' which makes the design worse.
i read about it before i had this done to me for the first time, and i played along with it. it's a neat trick because it's plausibly deniable for everyone involved and the outcome is good while minimizing the bullshit work in favor of a sacrificial final word.