Steven at SpyderBlog had a really good comment on my last post. I started to answer it in the comment section, but it soon became clear that it needed more significant attention. I quoted the The Design Constitution which says, in part:

Rather than dictate specific changes to a design--"move this here" or "change the color to,: - let's agree the Client will request a new design or a variation of the original that addresses specific problems.

Steven's response was:

From a web usability and content writing perspective, I know of many times when a small change does not require an entirely new design or a variation of a mostly approved design.

I agree, small changes often don't require that sort of drastic change. It's more of the attitude of the designer/client relationship that I'm considering. The key as I see it, is for the designer to be able to address specific client identified problems, rather than having the client acting as designer. I have no problem with clients identifying problems with a design. I do have a problem with the client trying to identify and execute the solution to the problem. As a designer, I don't want a client looking over my shoulder saying things like "move that up a little", or "a little to the left". That may sound silly, but I've had clients try to do that both figuratively and literally. What I want is to have the client say something like "I think the text is too tight around that graphic", then let me address that problem. I am good at my job, my clients are good at theirs. They are not however good at mine. What I like about this constitution is how it clarifies this relationship. This is my job as graphic designer or web designer, that is yours as a client. That clarity is often missing in designer/client relationships.