Discussing Design: Improving Communication and Collaboration through Critique

by Adam Connor

Critique requires an investment. This investment certainly comes from the person who provides the critique; he has an obligation upon accepting the request to provide you with an ability to act and/or react to his input. (There is a bit of beauty here in that you get to decide how to act and/or react to his input, and that can be to do nothing with it. You should, of course, be prepared to explain why you did nothing with it.)

It is you who are obligated to set up your audience to provide you the critique that you want and need through a structured request.

It is you who needs to provide people a proper context—the scope and goals for the critique—to set the proper expectations and to frame the critique that allow you to explore possible improvements.

Designers have to not only respond and react, they also have to try to organize and coordinate discussions, thoughts, and debates and then try to iterate. And then, the process is repeated again (and sometimes again, and again) as a new draft is sent around again, bereft of context or explanation of what’s been updated.

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.

The issue with feedback lies in how nonspecific it is. Feedback itself is nothing more than a reaction or response.

In human-to-human interactions such as the conversations we have in our projects, the feedback we receive might be nothing more than a gut reaction to whatever is being presented.

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.

Feedback is an important part of the design process, but the term itself and the way we often ask for it is very broad and can produce conversations that aren’t useful. We can improve these conversations by understanding what feedback is and how we use it.

reaction-based feedback

Direction-based feedback,

You might also have encountered examples of this kind of feedback that start with phrasing similar to, “If I were to do this...” or “I would have...” or “I wish...”

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.

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.

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).

Feedback encompasses three forms: reaction, direction, and critique. Reaction and direction are limited in their ability to help us understand if the design choices we’ve made might work toward the product’s objectives. Critique, a form of analysis that uses critical thinking, is feedback that focuses on exactly that understanding.

Experienced designers, artists, engineers, and others have learned how to be deliberate in controlling when to make this toggle, periodically pausing their creative work to take a step back and critique what they have so far.

By bringing your project team together to critique on a recurring basis, you provide a venue for this shared vocabulary to build up and take hold.

It isn’t always a formal meeting or a specific request such as, “Could I get you to critique something with me?” As the project progresses and decisions are made, critique is just part of the conversation.

The team understands that in order to make good decisions about what to design and how to design it, it needs to think critically about its options and objectives.

Because critique, when done well, focuses on analyzing design choices against a product’s objectives, it also provides teams with additional benefits, acting as a mechanism for building shared vocabulary, finding relevant consensus, and driving effective iteration.

Improving the quality of critique,

overcome three myths

Critique is a meaningless term used to make feedback sound more important

Myth 2: We don’t need to talk about or practice how we give feedback

Myth 3: Critique is something only designers or other creative people do

Critical thinking This is the examination of what you’re designing against the objectives for its creation.

Delivery This is how you present your critical thinking to the others with whom you’re working.

Often, it can be seen as a process that only applies to a wireframe or a visual design mockup or maybe a prototype, but in reality, critique can be applied to just about anything.

To ensure that our conversations with teammates are as useful as they can be, we need to think about how we apply critical thinking to the topics we discuss and how we share with others the insights we achieve as a result of that critical thinking.

Feedback has three forms: reaction, direction, and critique.

How we ask for and collect feedback has a significant effect on which forms of feedback we receive as well as its relevancy and usefulness in helping us to improve our designs.

Critique, the third form of feedback, is analysis that uses critical thinking to ask whether what we’ve designed will work to achieve the established goals and objectives.

Prior to beginning a critique, whether you’re the giver or receiver, it’s best to ensure that you’re going in with the right intent.

Giving critique with the right intent is about wanting to contribute to the improvement of the design by helping

The Characteristics of Bad Critique

Selfish

critique is not the place for exploring new ideas. Its purpose is to analyze the design as it has been created so far.

Untimely

Incomplete

We often see feedback in the form of things like, “I think the button is better than the link” or “Nobody is going to click that.” Or, even worse, “This is terrible...”

“Nobody is going to click on that because the current page design leads the eye down the left side of the screen away from the call-to-action.”

Good critique is actionable.

Good critique avoids problem solving because it can detract and distract from the analytical focus of the discussion.

Preferential

For example, a website design is discarded because the color scheme reminds a stakeholder of a Christmas sweater his ex-wife gave him.

Best Practices for Giving Critique

Lead with questions

Examples of questions you might ask: Can you tell me more about what your objectives were for [specific aspect or element of the design]? What other options did you consider for [aspect/element]? Why did you choose this approach for [aspect/element]? Were there any influencers or constraints that affected your choices? Remember though, the dual purpose of asking these questions of the designer: To get more information To make the designer more comfortable talking about his thought process and decisions