sectionwellThe field notes / Review & revision
Two conflicting website comments, one named approver
A fictional first-draft example shows how to preserve two comments, choose approved wording and pause when nobody can decide.
The first website draft often comes back with comments in more than one place. Copying every line into a task list is easy. The useful work is deciding which lines concern the same element, whether they disagree, and whose choice controls the next version. A designer can make that reasoning visible without buying a project portal or pretending that every comment is an approval.
A single button, two instructions
In this fictional example, Hearthside Gardens is reviewing version v3 of its five-page site. The Contact button currently reads ‘Book a consultation.’ Co-owner Theo emails, ‘Change it to Get a free quote.’ Maya, the agreed final content approver, replies by email: ‘Use Ask about a project instead. There is no free-quote promise.’ Both comments refer to one button in v3. They are not two separate changes to make in sequence.
Keep both source statements in the studio record. Record Theo’s email as a proposed free-quote wording and Maya’s email as the approved exact wording. Name Maya’s role because it is the reason the conflict can be resolved. Then mark Theo’s proposal superseded, with a link to Maya’s decision. ‘Superseded’ is more truthful than deleting Theo’s comment; someone may later ask why it was omitted.
- Draft and element: Hearthside Gardens v3, Contact button.
- Source A: Theo’s email proposes ‘Get a free quote.’
- Source B: Maya’s email approves ‘Ask about a project’ and rejects a free-quote promise.
- Disposition: use Maya’s exact wording in v4; keep both comments linked in the studio record.
Write a response the client can check
Contact button, draft v3: Theo suggested ‘Get a free quote.’ Maya confirmed ‘Ask about a project’ as the final wording and noted that the business has no free-quote promise. We will use ‘Ask about a project’ in v4. Please tell us before that version is prepared if the agreed final approver or offer has changed.
That response names the affected version, the conflicting proposals, the authority for the choice and the next version. It does not expose internal fee notes. It also avoids making a business claim the client has not approved. The studio still needs to verify that the button target and surrounding page copy match the chosen action; wording approval alone does not test the actual link.
When the choice must stay open
Now change one fact. Imagine the two co-owners disagree but the project has no named final content approver. The designer cannot use the later message, the louder voice or a deadline as a tie-breaker. Record both comments, ask the client to name a decision owner and choose one wording, and hold this button change. Continue with independent approved work if the project allows it. If a new photograph or claim also needs permission, record that as a separate unresolved check; choosing a word does not grant usage rights.
For one contested change, an ordinary document can do this job. The free Website Review & Revision Sample includes an editable one-change worksheet and this fictional Hearthside case. If a review spans several pages, sources and draft versions, the optional $19 Website Review & Revision Kit provides the full ledger, client responses and blocked example. The decision remains with the client and designer; the files make its status legible.
Was this example useful for your next client conversation?