“Make it stand out” sounds like a visual instruction. It leaves the important part unanswered: stand out to whom, at what point, and at the expense of what?
View full image
A larger button could satisfy the request and make the page worse. Before changing it, I would try to understand the concern behind the comment. Perhaps customers miss the next step. Perhaps the business wants to promote a secondary service. Those are different problems, even if both arrive as a request for more contrast.
Get specific without turning the meeting into an interrogation
Consider a checkout review. Someone wants an express payment option to be more prominent. Asking “What problem are you trying to solve?” is reasonable, but can sound dismissive when repeated after every suggestion. A more useful response might be: “Are we concerned that returning customers are missing this option, or that everyone should use it?”
The first concern could justify a clearer label or earlier placement. The second needs a discussion about eligibility, alternative payment methods and what happens when the express flow fails. The question helps expose the decision rather than asking the stakeholder to defend their right to contribute.
Put the trade-off on the screen
Show two versions with the same content. In one, the express option dominates. In the other, it sits beside the regular path. Ask reviewers to describe what they notice first and what they think happens next. That comparison gives the conversation something concrete to work with.
A stakeholder might still prefer the dominant version because it supports a commercial agreement. That is legitimate context. Record it as a business constraint. Calling it a usability improvement without evidence would make the rationale less honest.
Leave with more than agreement
A useful outcome is specific: “We will place the express option before the contact fields, explain what information it supplies, and check whether people understand that the regular checkout remains available.” There is an action, a reason and an open question.
Agreement alone is a weak finish. People can agree to a screen while holding incompatible assumptions about it. Asking someone to restate the expected behavior often reveals more than another round of visual comments.
Some disagreements will remain. If the decision cannot wait, name who owns it, what risk the team is accepting and what evidence would justify revisiting it. That is more useful than pretending the meeting proved the design was right.