Design Critique

Purpose

Gather actionable, structured feedback on design artefacts from stakeholders and cross-functional team members without drifting into unstructured opinion-sharing or premature feature specification. Design critique separates feedback (what works and what doesn't) from decision-making (what to do about it), ensuring that the designer retains ownership of design solutions while the team contributes diverse perspectives.

When to Use

Use design critique when:

• Wireframes or prototypes are ready for stakeholder review
• Multiple perspectives are needed (PM, engineering, research, business)
• The team needs to gather feedback without making binding design decisions
• A2.5 DP2 requires stakeholder input as evidence

Do NOT use when:

• Artefacts are too rough for meaningful feedback (sketch stage)—use Design Studio instead
• A binding go/no-go decision is needed—that belongs to A2.5

Sample Size and Duration

Participants: 5–10

Duration: 2–3 hours for 8–12 concepts (10–15 minutes per concept + 15 minutes synthesis)

Prerequisites

• Wireframes or prototypes for 8–12 concepts
• 5–10 participants (designer, PM, engineer, user researcher, stakeholders)
• Facilitator (may be the designer or a separate person)
• Presentation setup (screen share, printed wireframes, or Figma walkthrough)
• 2–3 hours for a full 8–12 concept review

Complete Procedure

Step 1: Set Context (5 minutes)

1. Remind participants of the problem being solved (A1.3 need statement)
2. Explain the purpose: “We're gathering feedback on design direction, not making go/no-go decisions (that's A2.5).”
3. Introduce the feedback format: “I like / I wish / What if”

Step 2: Present Each Concept (5–10 minutes per concept)

1. Designer walks through wireframes: “This concept addresses [problem] by [approach]. Here's the user journey…”
2. Show key screens, interaction flow, and design rationale
3. State open questions: “I'm unsure whether [specific element] communicates [intent]. Looking for your reaction.”

Step 3: Structured Feedback (5 minutes per concept)

1. Each participant provides feedback using the format: itemize
2. “I like…”: Strengths to preserve (“I like that the primary action is immediately visible”)
3. “I wish…”: Improvements needed (“I wish the navigation between steps was clearer”)
4. “What if…”: New possibilities (“What if users could customise the dashboard layout?”) itemize
5. Facilitator captures feedback on shared board
6. Designer listens and asks clarifying questions but does not defend or justify during feedback

Step 4: Synthesise (15 minutes after all concepts reviewed)

1. Review feedback across all concepts
2. Identify patterns: recurring strengths, recurring concerns
3. Facilitator summarises: which concepts received strongest positive response? Which raised most concerns?
4. Prepare synthesis document for A2.5 DP2 input

Quality Criteria

1. All 8–12 concepts reviewed
2. Feedback recorded using structured format
3. Each concept receives ≥1 “I wish” (no politeness-only reviews)
4. Feature requests captured separately (not confused with design feedback)
5. Synthesis document prepared for A2.5 DP2

Theoretical Foundation

Seminal references:

• : Described design as a “reflective conversation with the situation”—designers learn by externalising their thinking and receiving feedback. Design critique formalises this reflective loop, ensuring that feedback is structured, specific, and actionable.
• : Documented structured critique practices across design firms and education, establishing the “I like / I wish / What if” framework as an effective protocol that balances positive reinforcement with constructive challenge.

Challenges and Solutions

Challenge 1: Feedback Drift into Feature Requests

• Symptoms: “Can we add a reporting dashboard?” “It should integrate with Salesforce”
• Solution: Facilitator redirects: “That's a great feature idea—I'll capture it for A2.4. Right now, does the core interaction communicate the value proposition?”

Challenge 2: Politeness Bias

• Symptoms: “It all looks great!” from every participant (no actionable feedback)
• Solution: Require at least one “I wish” from each participant per concept. Frame constructive feedback as helping the designer, not criticising.

Relationship to Other Methods

Design Critique receives input from:

• Wireframing (the referenced method): artefacts being reviewed

Design Critique provides output to:

• A2.2 Step~4 iteration (feedback drives wireframe updates)
• A2.5 Decision Point~2 (stakeholder feedback as evidence)
• A2.3 Idea Selection (context for test design)

• D. A. Schon (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
• S. Greenberg, S. Carpendale, N. Marquardt & B. Buxton (2012). The Narrative, Sketch, and Prototype in Design: Tools for Communicating Design Ideas. Interactions. 19(4). pp. 64–69.