Discussing Design: Improving Communication and Collaboration through Critique

by Adam Connor

Everyone in the critique session should participate.

But as we mentioned in the previous rule, great insights can come from anyone, and we can miss out on helpful information when people do not participate in critiques.

If someone has jumped to a solution without describing the issue in the design that she’s trying to solve, ask questions that work toward identifying what that issue is and how it relates to the objectives of the design.

If someone is spending a lot of time trying to describe his new solution to you, and you understand the issue or insight he’s trying to raise, work toward getting him to hold onto that idea for a future discussion that will be focused on exploration so that you can continue with the analysis as planned, as depicted in Figure 5-2

What is paramount is to keep everyone in the same mental process.

The output of a critique is not a list of specific changes for the designer to go back and make. Instead, the desired output is a set of new observations and understandings about the design and whether it is meeting the objectives set for it. This goes back to the previous rule. If a list of changes is coming out of a critique session, problem solving is taking the place of analysis.

After a critique should come a period of exploration, using the new insights to frame challenges and generate possible solutions.

The “I Like...” or “I Don’t Like...” Rule Often, when we talk about the rules of critique we are asked about the rule of thumb on avoiding the use of the phrases “I like...” or “I don’t like....” The thinking behind this rule is that critique itself isn’t about what the individual likes or dislikes; that likely is not relevant to whether the design is meeting its objectives.

Ensure That the Team Knows the Critique Session Format and the Plans for Facilitating

Avoid “Ta-Da” Moments As designers, it is common for us to take the information we gather during research and analysis to our desks and work like a mad scientist on our creations. When the time is right we emerge with grand plans to show our awesome design to the team. We unveil our creation: “Ta-da! Look what I’ve made.” And then we wait for the applause... Crickets The response we get is often not what we’d hoped for. Most, if not all of the people we’re revealing our designs to are just seeing the designs for the first time and can only really have a gut reaction to what they are seeing. This is reactive feedback, and as we’ve described, it is rarely useful when it comes to helping us iterate and improve on our designs.

Describe the Product’s Objectives Whether you’re sending out emails in preparation for the critique session or standing in front of the room presenting your work to the group, be sure to remind the team of the goals, principles, scenarios, and personas that apply to the aspects of the designs being reviewed. This will help provide the correct context for the participants to analyze the designs.

Present Your Work Quickly and Efficiently When presenting work for feedback it is a common urge to overexplain things to ensure that those critiquing really understand the design, the choices that were made, and the reasons why they were made. But this approach can often slow things down and eat up the time in the meeting. We need to present efficiently. This doesn’t mean that we have to rush through the presentation, but rather keep an efficient, steady pace. We should walk the team through the specific aspect of the design that we want to discuss and not worry about explaining our rationale for every decision; just give enough of an explanation so that the team gets an understanding of how the design is intended to work.

Be Careful When Talking About Constraints While designing, teams will run into no shortage of constraints. These might stem from the workings of legacy systems, infrastructure limitations, deadlines, budgets, or a variety of other business or technical decisions. While initially presenting part of a design, it’s not uncommon to want to include mention of the constraints we faced, especially if the constraint was particularly frustrating and forced us to make a decision that we feel is less than ideal. In these situations, however, some participants will often interpret the constraints we discuss as excuses or possibly even that we’re casting blame. As a result, they can have a negative impact on the tone and energy of the discussion.

it’s often better to let discussion of the constraint arise through questions.

Defining the Critique Scope and Goals We need to determine scope and goals for the products we are creating in order to help us to stay on track and focus on our outcomes during the course of the project.

The scope of a critique is an identification of the components of the design that the team will be analyzing and the objectives against which they’ll be analyzed.

With the scope of a critique session set, identifying the goals can be fairly straightforward: Identifying what is working in the designs with respect to the identified scope Identifying anything that isn’t working in the designs with respect to the identified scope Gathering insights on any specific questions the designer may have Identifying any concerns, open questions, and assumptions

Another way to identify goals and scope is to do reverse planning. In this approach, we begin by identifying what actions you want to be able to take after the conversation.

Potential goals for this critique might be: Identifying the aspects of the design that do not support the desired experience. Identifying the aspects of the design that are most effective in producing the desired experience so that they can perhaps be expanded upon. Identifying the aspects of the design where there are the most questions or disagreement amongst the team, so that the usability study can take them into consideration and perhaps incorporate them into the study’s plan

Implementing Active Listening Hearing is easy; listening is difficult.

We can’t take everything communicated to us in a critique at face value and assume that everyone has the same understanding of what a piece of feedback means.

When using Round Robin, the person facilitating the critique goes around the room in a specific, repeatable order, calling on and collecting feedback from participants. This eliminates waiting to see who speaks first. It also reinforces that everyone should participate and gives participants some predictability as to when they’ll get the chance to share their feedback. Round

Another structure to consider using is Quotas. With Quotas, the facilitator lets the team know that an objective of the critique is to collect a certain number of things that are working well and things that aren’t

The Six Thinking Hats is a facilitation technique created by Edward de Bono, M.D., and described in the book he authored of the same name. The six hats method uses colored hats to represent different ways of analyzing a problem space or design. Throughout the session the team will switch hats to change perspective. Following is a description of each hat: White hat The white hat takes the focus and puts it on facts alone for analysis, with no speculation. Yellow hat The yellow hat represents looking at the positive, focusing on what is working. Black hat The black hat focuses on concerns, difficulties, or why something might not work. Black-hat thinking is often seen when someone plays the role of devil’s advocate. Red hat The red hat focuses on feelings that participants have in response to what they are analyzing. Hunches, fears, emotional responses, and personal likes and dislikes all make up red-hat thinking. Green hat The green hat focuses on creativity and generating new concepts and understandings. Blue hat The blue hat identifies the individual who is managing the discussion, determining its focus, goals, and so on. It is the one hat that is not shared by the group.

Using Third-Party Facilitators Using a third-party facilitator—someone from outside the team or project—to run a critique can be helpful when a team is just beginning to implement regular critiques as a part of the design process.

Here are the kinds of things I consider: Relevancy of the feedback to the product’s objectives. The more of the product’s scenarios, personas, goals, and principles that the feedback is applicable to, the higher its priority. Immediacy of the feedback. Based on the timeline and project plan, if there are certain aspects of the product that need to be addressed sooner than others, perhaps because they’re planned to be developed or released sooner, those receive higher priority. Amount of agreement. Thinking about the participants, I consider how many people shared the same perspective. Typically, the more people who agree on something, the higher priority that something receives. Source of the feedback. I also consider who the feedback came from and that individual’s knowledge and expertise. If it’s particularly relevant to the feedback, perhaps because they’re a subject matter expert, that can shift the priority.

Some basic rules help us set up a critique and keep it focused and useful: Everyone is equal Everyone participates Avoid problem solving Don’t rush to make decisions

Choose who is best to include. Good insights can come from anywhere, not just the design team, so think about inviting a cross-functional group. Let people know how the session will be run. Let people know how you plan to run the session and collect their feedback. Avoid “Ta-da!” moments. Showing people a design and expecting them to be able to immediately give you useful, actionable feedback doesn’t work. Describe objectives. People need to know what the design is trying to accomplish. Remind everyone so that participants are all on the same page. Present quickly and efficiently. Don’t become bogged down explaining every detail of the design. Be careful when talking about constraints. Including them as part of your initial presentation can seem like you’re making excuses. Let the issue of constraints come up through questions.

Critique scope and goals. Set the context and boundaries for the conversation. If the discussion begins to fall outside of your limits, by having these explicitly set, you can steer the conversation back within them. Active listening. Repeating back an insight or observation as you’ve understood it so that someone can confirm if your understanding matches the intent of that person. Simple structures. Formats such as Round Robin or Quotas can ease some apprehension and give people a predictable structure within which to work. Direct inquiry. Asking questions of people directly ensures that you take advantage of their expertise and experience with a topic. Thinking hats/lenses. Focus the conversation on a single aspect or angle at one time. Notes. Take notes publicly so that participants can verify that what is being captured matches what they’re trying to say. Facilitators. Use a third party to manage the flow of the conversation. Although this can be helpful at first, as a team gains experience, it’s better that it take on this role.

Nothing kills a great critique like poor follow-through. Be sure to use the insights you gather effectively and keep the momentum going. Share the notes and any open questions or assumptions that came up during the discussion. Review the findings and determine how to act on them. Follow up with people for further discussions or to explore ideas as you iterate.