Review against the agreed visitor task
Start with the purpose confirmed in the brief. Can the visitor understand the service, find essential information and reach the intended inquiry destination? Review the actual page on the devices relevant to the project before judging isolated design details.
For a hypothetical service website, “The package exclusions are hard to find on mobile” explains a customer problem. “Make it more premium” leaves the required change unclear. A useful reference can show the quality you want, with an explanation of why it matters.
Make each comment easy to locate
Name the page, section and device, then describe what you observed. If helpful, attach a screenshot without personal or confidential information. Write the desired outcome in plain language rather than guessing the technical fix.
For example: “On the mobile service page, the contact button covers the final sentence; keep the sentence readable.” This states an observable issue and a clear outcome. It does not assume which layout method should be used to resolve it.
- Location: page, section and device
- Observation: what happens now
- Outcome: what the visitor should be able to do
- Priority: essential correction or preference
Consolidate decisions before sending a round
Ask one person to collect comments from the people who need to approve the work. Resolve conflicting instructions before sharing the list. If one reviewer wants less text and another needs more explanation, state the underlying concern so it can be discussed coherently.
The six studio packages include two revision rounds within the original scope. Specialist tiers follow their displayed limit. Provider errors are corrected without using a revision round, so keep a clear distinction between an error and a change in preference.
Separate a revision from a new requirement
Adjusting an agreed heading or clarifying supplied content may fit the original work. Adding another language, new pages or an ordering system changes the requirement and needs its own assessment. The important reference is the confirmed scope, not whether the request looks small on screen.
If a new need appears, describe its purpose and ask about the extra work, cost and schedule before proceeding. A written agreement helps both sides understand what is included and how the remaining delivery plan changes.
Close the review with an approval checklist
After changes, check the relevant pages, approved content, navigation and inquiry links. Confirm that important facts and conditions still match the brief. Record unresolved points rather than treating silence as a shared decision.
Send consolidated feedback through the Fastwork project conversation so it can be read alongside the agreed requirements. Final handover follows the selected package and payment terms. This review method supports clearer coordination without promising that every later request is included.
Your next step
Before sending feedback, ask whether each item has a location, an observation and a desired outcome. Combine the list, resolve conflicting instructions and mark requests that may change the original scope.
