Why Most Critiques Fail
We've sat through hundreds of design critiques. Most fall into two failure modes: the love fest (everyone says "looks great" and nothing improves) or the pile-on (everyone nitpicks and the designer leaves demoralized). Both waste time. Both produce worse work.
The root cause is structural, not cultural. Bad critiques happen because there's no framework guiding the conversation.
Our Critique Format
Duration: 30 minutes, hard stop. Shorter sessions produce more focused feedback.
Structure: 3 minutes - presenter explains the problem being solved and decisions made. 20 minutes - structured feedback using the prompt framework. 7 minutes - synthesis and next steps.
Participants: 3-5 people. Fewer is too narrow; more becomes a committee.
The Feedback Prompts
Instead of open-ended "what do you think?", we use four structured prompts:
1. "What problem does this solve, and how well?" - Forces evaluation against the brief, not personal taste.
2. "Where does this create friction for the user?" - Targets usability, not aesthetics.
3. "What would you change if you had 30 minutes?" - Keeps suggestions practical and scoped.
4. "What would break if this shipped as-is?" - Identifies blockers vs nice-to-haves.
Rotating Roles
We rotate three roles every session: Facilitator (keeps time, manages flow), Note-taker (captures feedback in a shared doc), and Devil's advocate (required to challenge at least one consensus opinion). Rotating the devil's advocate prevents any one person from being seen as "the critic" and ensures groupthink gets challenged.
The 24-Hour Follow-Up
Feedback that isn't documented within 24 hours is lost. The note-taker sends a structured summary: decisions made, action items with owners, and unresolved questions. The designer responds within 48 hours with how they addressed each point. This closes the loop and prevents the same feedback from recurring.