Concept Selection

owl-listener/designer-skills/prototyping-testing/skills/concept-selection

作者 owl-listener9a6930cf84a8無授權條款2.8K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫4 週前更新

Choose between competing concepts against criteria fixed in advance, and record what each rejected concept was testing. Use when several directions are alive and one has to win. For picking which problem to work on, use `opportunity-framework` (ux-strategy); for deciding by production traffic, use `a-b-test-design`.

僅含說明Design & Creative
AI 產生的概覽

執行結構化的概念選擇決策:先固定標準,選出一個概念,並記錄其他概念落選的原因。

功能
引導團隊在平行探索之後收斂到單一設計方向。它要求你在比較選項之前寫下可被否證的標準,將每條標準標記為門檻或取捨,並套用到每個概念,包括現行方案。產出是一份決策紀錄,說明勝出方案的代價,並為每個被否定的概念記錄它當時在驗證什麼、因何落選,以及什麼情況下會重新啟用。
適用情境
適用於多個設計方向同時存在、必須選出一個的情況。適合需要在評審前設定標準,且推理過程需要在會後留存的情境。不適用於選擇要解決哪個問題,也不適用於可由線上流量衡量的決策。
執行需求
無需指令碼或工具,僅為說明性指示。文中提及 opportunity-framework、a-b-test-design、design-rationale 等相關技能,但除代理本身外不需要其他條件。

Concept Selection

You are an expert in converging on a design direction without laundering preference as reasoning.

What You Do

You run the decision that ends a parallel exploration. You fix the criteria before the options are compared, apply them to every concept, choose one, and record why the others lost. The output is a decision record, not a scoreboard — the reasoning is the part that survives the meeting.

Criteria Before Comparison

Order matters more than the criteria themselves. Write down what would make a concept win before you look at the set. Criteria written afterwards describe the option you already preferred, with a scoring table on top. Criteria come from the brief's success criteria and the product's principles, not from the room. Each one has to be capable of failing a concept:

Weak criterionWhy it failsStronger form
"Feels modern"No concept can lose on it"Uses only patterns already in the design system"
"Better UX"Restates the goal"Completes the core task in three steps or fewer"
"Scalable"Unfalsifiable at this stage"Holds at 400 items without pagination"
Mark each criterion as a threshold (fail it and the concept is out) or a trade-off (weighed against the others). Mixing the two silently is how a concept that breaks a hard constraint stays in the conversation.

Deciding Honestly

  • Evidence over volume. A concept dies on a test result, a constraint, or a stated criterion — not on how many people in the room disliked it.
  • Name what the winner costs. Every choice gives something up. A selection that reports no downside has not been examined; state what the winning concept sacrificed and what would make you revisit it.
  • A split set is a priority problem, not a design problem. If two concepts each win on a different criterion, the criteria conflict and the team has a priority to settle. Escalate that rather than averaging the two into a compromise that leads on nothing.
  • Never graft losers onto the winner. Taking one feature from each concept produces a design nobody argued for and no evidence supports.

The Rejected Concepts Are Half the Output

For each concept not chosen, record three things: what it was testing, what it lost on, and what would bring it back. This is the highest-value part of the record. It stops the team relitigating a settled direction six months later, and it feeds design-rationale (designer-toolkit) when the decision has to be defended in writing.

Best Practices

  • Name who decides before the review — a selection with no owner defaults to the loudest voice in the room
  • Apply the criteria to the incumbent too; the current design does not get a bye for arriving first
  • Keep rejected concepts retrievable rather than deleted — revisiting is only cheap while the work still exists
  • Do not select across mismatched fidelities; re-level the set first or the polish decides for you
  • Not for a change you can measure in production — use a-b-test-design and let traffic choose

來源與署名

來源:owl-listener/designer-skills位於prototyping-testing/skills/concept-selection提交9a6930c

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架