More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
by
Adam Connor
Read between
November 6 - November 9, 2023
Critique is supposed to be helpful. It should be an analysis that helps us understand what is working and what isn’t and whether we are on the right track toward reaching our goals.
There isn’t a single individual who is responsible for coming up with an idea, designing it, building it, selling it, and supporting it. Instead, these responsibilities and the expertise that come with them are divided among a variety of contributors who each bring knowledge to the team. So, we need to work together, combining our skills and know-how.
The issue with feedback lies in how nonspecific it is. Feedback itself is nothing more than a reaction or response.
The problem with asking for feedback is that, most times, we aren’t being specific enough in describing what we want feedback on and why we are asking for it.
There are three forms of feedback,
Essentially, it’s a gut reaction.
the reaction itself isn’t in regard to what’s being presented; rather, it’s in response to simply being asked for feedback in the first place. Examples of this kind of feedback often take the form of “That’s wonderful! Great work!” or “I love what you did with...”
At best, this kind of feedback informs us about the subconscious reaction the viewer has to what you’ve designed.
Direction-based feedback, as seen in Figure 1-4, typically begins with an instruction or suggestion.
Similar to reaction-based feedback, direction-based feedback without any explanation indicates nothing about the effectiveness of your decisions in meeting the design’s objectives.
Additionally, when left unchecked, this type of feedback leads to problem solving which, although an important part of the design process, is counterproductive to the conversation you’re trying to have.
When looking for feedback on our designs, we should be working to understand whether we believe that what has been designed will work to achieve those objectives. We should be looking for a form of analysis to take place. And that’s exactly what critique is.
Critique: The third form of feedback
Good critique is comprised of three key elements: It identifies a specific aspect of the idea or a decision in the design being analyzed. It relates that aspect or decision to an objective or best practice.
It describes how and why the aspect or decision work to support or not support the objective or best practice.
Critique isn’t about that instant reaction we might feel when seeing something, or about how we would change someone’s design to better solve an issue. Critique is a form of analysis that uses critical thinking to determine whether a design is expected to achieve its desired objectives (and adhere to any pertinent best practices or heuristics).
Standalone critiques Meetings or discussions held for the sole purposed of critiquing something
Collaborative activities Events in which multiple people work together simultaneously to solve a specific challenge Design reviews A common event in organizations’ project and design processes
Central Idea Regardless of how and when you incorporate critique, be intentional. Think about who should be included. Keep groups small when first introducing critique. And always, listen and think before you speak.
Both formal and informal critiques are helpful. To ensure that we get the most out of them we need to consider the right type of critique setting for the situation. Formal critiques provide a dedicated, predictable time, and as such, they typically give us an opportunity to collect a wider range of perspectives because we can gather more people. Informal critiques provide designers with a way to quickly collect feedback and get answers to pressing questions so that they can continue working on their solutions instead of waiting for a scheduled meeting.
When thinking about what needs to be in place to critique an idea in a useful manner with respect to the idea itself, two very important considerations come up: We need to be able to clearly communicate the idea to others. We need to have the time to process the feedback we receive from the critique and use it to iterate on our idea. Taking these things into consideration,
Figure 4-4. Identifying the critique sweet-spot
What Should You Critique? Another common question that Aaron and I hear is, “What should we be critiquing? Sketches? Wireframes? Visual Design Comps? Prototypes?”
To generate lots of ideas, we need to utilize activities that minimize or remove the opportunity for critical thinking and give individual participants an opportunity to form their own perspective. These kinds of activities are called divergent thinking activities.
Divide your time into two main phases. In the first phase, utilize divergent thinking activities with which you can generate a large number of possible solutions without concern about their validity or quality. In the second phase, plan for convergent activities that push participants to examine the proposed ideas, looking for ways to categorize, consolidate, and eliminate ideas. Incorporate critique as part of the second phase to ensure that ideas are being kept or eliminated based on their strengths with respect to the product’s objectives. Central
The teams each have three minutes to present their ideas and seven minutes to receive critique from the other teams.
Design Studio is a great technique for quick collaboration, helping a team find consensus, and begin to see the direction that their design will take. But like any tool, it isn’t the best fit for every situation. Depending on your circumstances your project may not yet be in a position to utilize Design Studio or there may be circumstances that require you to rethink aspects of Design Studio or pursue a different approach all together.
The problem hasn’t been framed adequately If the problem hasn’t been adequately framed, there isn’t enough context and definition to guide the team in generating ideas.
The problem has been framed, but there is no agreement on the framing In some cases, we find that a portion of the team, perhaps the designers or researchers, has worked to frame the problem, but that framing hasn’t yet been shared, understood and agreed upon by the team.
concept already exists from which the team can’t or won’t stray Design Studio pushes participants to consider as many possibilities as they can come up with. This means that the ideas that emerge at the end of a studio may look very different than an existing design or product that the team already has. In order for Design Studios to be effective, the participants (and leadership) need to be OK with that.
Overly complicated remote situations Design Studio is best executed in person; for this activity, there is nothing like collaborating and working together face to face. With that said, remote Design Studio can work (we both do them regularly with our teams) as long as expectations are clear from the beginning, teams are equipped with tools like document cameras, and a solid Internet connection is available.
Conducting Design Reviews Whereas standalone critiques and collaborative activities are great and recommended ways to incorporate critique into the design process, design reviews are a bit different. Design reviews are a common type of meeting that we find in projects in most organizations. Sometimes they have different names. To clarify what we’re referring to, these meetings share the following characteristics: They are generally meetings held toward the end of the design phase. They include a goal of collecting approval from someone on the design thus far so that efforts can shift to some
...more
Too many people and people with the wrong intentions are involved
Take control of the review This doesn’t mean that you need to hijack the meeting, per se, but try to get into as much of a lead role as possible. If you can be the one to set up and organize the meeting, do it. If you can be the one to lead and facilitate the meeting, do it.
Do not rely on design reviews for critique
Central Idea Design reviews present challenges to the core intention of critique: continuous improvement. But, because the techniques used in critique work to make feedback more useful in the design process, they can be used to improve feedback gathered during design reviews.
Critique’s primary utility is as an iteration driver.
Standalone critiques (both formal and informal or ad hoc): These are meetings or discussions with the solitary purpose of critiquing a creation so that it can be iterated upon further.
Collaborative activities: Activities that bring team members together to work on idea generation and selection. Including critique in these activities helps teams identify where there is consensus around ideas with the most value to the product’s objectives. Design reviews: Meetings that include some intention to collect sign-off or approval on a design. Although we recommend that these be handled separate from critiques, as feedback is collected during reviews, we can use many of the tools and techniques for critique to make the feedback collected as useful as possible.
Start small. The more people involved in a conversation, the more difficult it is to manage. When introducing or practicing critique, start with small groups or just pairs and build from there.
Think before you speak. Listening is paramount. How can you offer good feedback or act on the feedback you’ve received if you don’t accurately understand what you’re being told?
Choose participants carefully. Critique is not for everyone. Some people struggle more than others. To the degree you can, think about how you put people together to best improve their skills and comfort level.
Central Idea Facilitation is an invaluable skill when it comes to gathering useful critique. Strong facilitation keeps critique conversations focused and productive.
More attention should not be paid to those of a higher position just because of that position.
HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion); it’s a killer when it comes to effective critique.
They should recognize that their feedback is just as valued as that of everyone else, regardless of their job title.
During a session, if you notice that people are being quiet because of a “superior’s” participation, ask for feedback directly from those people.
