In the days before computers were ubiquitous in design, a visual was just that - a visualisation. Photographs would be indicated by sketches and coloured with Pantone pens. Display type would be laboriously drawn or created with rub-down lettering. Body type would be indicated by grey lines or maybe some left-over galley setting from another job. Large agencies had entire Departments dedicated to doing this. The aim was to give the client the general idea of what a design would look like. Only when the idea was approved did you start to make it real.

Nowadays, there is often little or no distinction between the visual and the final artwork that goes to the printer. Both are created on the Mac (or PC) and the latter is often just a more fully developed version of the former. While there are huge benefits to working this way - drop in a stock library shot instead of drawing a picture, select a groovy new display typeface from the font menu instead of trying to draw it - there is also a potential problem.

The problem is that the visual can be too good. It can look too finished to client, and it can set expectations that may cause trouble further down the line. By working on the computer, you can't be as unspecific as you can on paper. You can't just say 'type goes here', you have to choose which typeface, at what size, tracking and line spacing. You can't say 'bright, relaxed lifestyle shot of family goes here' and draw a few squiggles, you have to find a picture with the right content and style. Suddenly your visual is looking very much like a finished job in the client's eyes, if not in yours.

I once did a brochure for a client in which the illustration concept was photomicrographs of cells (it wasn't a biology treatise, it was for a management consultancy and the concept was 'organisation as organism') in colour. So we made a front cover visual by taking a quick and dirty scan on a low cost from a picture in a science photo library book, which came out with warm red and yellow tones. The visual was enthusiastically received by the client, but when it was time to show proofs before committing to print, she recoiled in horror. The warm fuzzy image of the visual had been replaced by a high quality scan from the transparency supplied by the photo library. Red had turned to pink, yellow to yellow-green and the whole thing had a hard clear organic quality that she didn't like at all. We spent ages with Photoshop trying to match the colour and feel of the visual - in the end we had to scan the visual before she would sign it off.

So what's the moral? Am I advocating a return to pen, ink and paper to get concept approval before committing anything to the screen?

Not at all. It's a question of managing the client's expectations. When you showed a visual done in magic markers, the client knew that it wasn't really going to look like that, but they got the general idea. Now when you go in with your glossy inkjet run-outs to present, bear in mind that to most clients, this will look like a finished job. Human eyes are good at colour and detail and the client may well fail to see the wood for the trees when looking at your visual.

So take a little time to explain that these aren't the real pictures but only an indicator of style. Show them other work by the photographers or illustrators you propose to use. Show them laser print-outs with other typefaces or sizes, if you're not yet convinced yourself about the best choice, or if it's dependent on approval of other aspects (or even on getting the copy to see how much space it really takes). Explain what a visual is for and which bits are 'real' and which are not. Spend the time to explain the general, so that when the project gets to the specifics, there won't be any nasty surprises.