A design critique usually manifests as a group conversation with the ultimate goal of improving a design. It does not mean simply judging a design. There are two distinct breeds of design critiques: standalone critiques and design reviews.

Standalone Critiques
Standalone critiques are gatherings with the sole purpose of improving a particular piece of work. They can happen at any stage in a design process, and usually there will be different critique sessions for several iterations of the same design.

Design Reviews
Design reviews in contrast, are usually evaluations of a design based on a set of heuristics; they can be done by a usability expert or in a meeting held at the end of the creative process in order to gain approval and move forward. In this article we will focus specifically on standalone critiques.

A positive culture of critique supports team building in multiple ways. First, from the get-go, everyone is able to stay up to date and in the loop on the work. Sharing designs early allows for earlier buy-in from team members that otherwise may not feel confident about the work and builds team consensus. Over time, this practice creates team trust and prevents any destructive egos from causing too much damage to a project.

Second, design critiques enable cooperation and collaboration. Your work can influence the work of others. For example, developers could build more extensible code throughout the current release if they have an understanding for what designs may come in the future. In this same way, they could question technical feasibility when the designs are still in progress and can be changed without throwing time and money away. Multiple designers who work on different parts of a big project can pick up possible inconsistencies across the overall user experience when they all participate in early critiques of each other’s draft designs.

Facilitation

Facilitation is a core aspect of a critique. Traditionally, facilitation is a mechanism used to manage chaotic processes. This management creates the structure and framework needed for productive conversations. There are two main facilitation approaches to UX critiques:

Round robin
Participants share their perspectives one by one, making their way around the table. This method provides two clear advantages. First, everyone contributes. Second, the process feels democratic: you can start at a random place at the table, and anybody has a chance at going first (if not the first time, then the next time).

Quotas
 The facilitator gathers a specific, predetermined number of positive and negative comments from each participant. For example, each participant could share two aspects of the design that seems to accurately meet users’ needs, and one aspect that could be improved. This approach specifically should be used only as a way to initiate conversation. Once there is a natural exchange, the critique could carry on based on where the conversation goes (assuming it falls within the set scope).

Facilitators’ responsibilities will vary, but likely will include time boxing, keeping conversation on track, and negotiating any tension. Creating, then distributing the scope and agenda for the design critique. In order for a critique to be productive, there must be a plan heading into it. Defining this plan is the facilitator’s responsibility. There are key components to line up prior to conducting a critique.

First, make everyone aware of the critique’s scope and goals. Setting the common understanding of what the conversation should and should not cover is an important part of making the most of the team’s time. Establish rules and expectations beforehand, to make sure that participants know what a critique is and how it is run. In addition, share the work that will be critiqued — you want to avoid big surprises at the time of the critique, while also giving participants the time to really think about the work before offering feedback.

Facilitators’ responsibilities will vary, but likely will include time boxing, keeping conversation on track, and negotiating any tension. Other important responsibilities are:

  • Creating, then distributing the scope and agenda for the design critique. In order for a critique to be productive, there must be a plan heading into it.
  • Defining this plan is the facilitator’s responsibility. There are key components to line up prior to conducting a critique.

First, make everyone aware of the critique’s scope and goals. Setting the common understanding of what the conversation should and should not cover is an important part of making the most of the team’s time. Establish rules and expectations beforehand, to make sure that participants know what a critique is and how it is run. In addition, share the work that will be critiqued — you want to avoid big surprises at the time of the critique, while also giving participants the time to really think about the work before offering feedback.

Second, purposefully choose the people who will participate in the critique. Ideally, this group will be cross-disciplinary.

Presenting

Presenting work, whether in a critique setting or not, makes the presenter feel vulnerable, especially if the critique is not established in your organization. Remember to not take feedback personally; instead, keep your mindset on improving your product. This attitude will make it easier to work though points of tension and will enable you to gain maximum value from the critique. When you’re presenting your work in a design critique, follow these best practices:

Repeat objectives
Prior to starting the critique, reiterate the goals of the work. Quickly summarize personas, current pain points, user tasks, or previous work. As mentioned above, it is also good idea to send out your work beforehand to avoid the initial reactive feedback based on someone’s gut reaction.

Tell a story
Start the critique by telling your work’s story. Though this might feel silly, not only is it good practice for storytelling to customers, but it loops your audience into the problems you encountered and into your inspirations and decision points. Follow it up with specific requests for feedback: what works, what doesn’t, where you need input and suggestions. Present your work quickly and efficiently. We like to over explain as a means of defending every decision we have made, because we are often emotionally tied to our designs. Try to be concise and to the point. After presenting, the team can always circle back to something that needs more discussion — but avoid eating up unnecessary time in the initial presentation. This approach to presenting will also have the added benefit of allowing your participants to see your work as your users may, without much explanation. During the subsequent discussions, questions and accompanying explanations will arise naturally.

Make your designs readily available. If your designs were not sent out prior to the meeting, make your designs available after the critique, in case extended discussion is needed. Schedule individual follow-up meetings if you need to discuss anyone’s feedback in more detail.

Specific Deliverables

Sketches
Because sketches are an exploratory part of the design process, be sure that any critique of them doesn’t shut down design directions before they’ve taken shape. If you’re soliciting feedback, ask broad, open-ended questions that encourage equally broad responses. After you’re done sketching ideas, ask others to contribute theirs.

If you’re providing feedback, build off the designer’s sketches with visual suggestions. Consider positing “what if” scenarios to get the team’s creative juices flowing. Don’t be afraid to suggest novel approaches—you’ll likely hit upon something no one has thought of yet.

Wireframes
Wireframes narrow the team’s focus by illustrating more resolute solutions. To obtain feedback, highlight specific areas. Clearly enumerated statements about the functionality of your interface explains your design methodology; highlighting elements helps the customer understand your design solution.

When asked to provide feedback on wireframes, offer suggestions in reply to specific highlighted areas. If possible, present examples of how something should be modified. Make sure to direct the team’s next steps with a visible goal in order to make sure everyone’s thoughts are aligned.

Visual Design
Wireframes narrow the team’s focus by illustrating more resolute solutions. To obtain feedback, highlight specific areas. Clearly enumerated statements about the functionality of your interface explains your design methodology; highlighting elements helps the customer understand your design solution.

When asked to provide feedback on wireframes, offer suggestions in reply to specific highlighted areas. If possible, present examples of how something should be modified. Make sure to direct the team’s next steps with a visible goal in order to make sure everyone’s thoughts are aligned.

Feedback Tools

Email
Email makes it easy to articulate your thoughts because writing things down forces the person giving feedback to think through her suggestions. Written feedback also serves as a great historical reference so you can recall what your team said in years past.

Digital feedback is also terrific for keeping things brief and succinct—no need for endless conversations that go on and on. It’s also asynchronous and doesn’t rely on matching schedules or hard-to-plan meetings.

In Person
Though email may seem like the easiest method for useful feedback sessions, face-to-face meetings can often provide much better insight. For instance, body language and tone of voice are very revealing. You’ll get a sense of how comfortable the feedback-giver is with what they’re saying and his tone of voice can help you better understand the scope of the discussion.

Feeling the intent of the feedback can also give you enough insight to get the point of the directive. Don’t overlook the power an in-person meeting can have toward building and creating momentum based on positive reinforcement.

Digital Feedback
These days, there’s computer- or web-based software out there to address the needs of nearly every professional situation, and feedback sessions are no different.

Our team’s feedback tool, Figma FigJam, is designed to facilitate responsible, actionable feedback. Team members can provide specific, contextual design feedback. Team members and clients can capture webpages in several different ways, and then add their annotations. It’s easy to track who’s leaving and viewing feedback, as well as assign permissions to allow only certain people to see specific elements as they’re under development.