Constructive design critique requires strategy
In design, critique is imparetive. Designs are iterative, dynamic, alive — and as such, they require revision and evolution. Constructive criticism is feedback which evokes growth, and this is a key step in the design process.
Lately I’ve been reading a a lot online about how to give, and receive, constructive criticism. For a long time, I thought that this was actually a very simple process. The secret, to me, was if a person is receiving constructive criticism, they should ask any questions they need to understand critical statements, try to assimilate the feedback into the next iteration of their work, not be combative or defensive, and always thank the critic for their input. Conversely, if a person is critiquing another’s work, they should try to only offer helpful feedback, avoid being accusatory or rude, and ‘sandwich’ criticism between compliments.
I’ve come to realize, while the above guidelines are not a bad place to start, there are more effective ways to participate in constructive criticism. We shouldn’t criticize just to point out faults, that serves no greater purpose; instead designs should be influenced and changed for the better because of criticism. This is effective, well executed constructive criticism.
One of the articles I came across by Jake Knapp, said that the first step in a design critique is to name the designer. “Write their name on the board. Remind everyone “so-and-so is the designer. Not you. Our job today is to help her”(source).Initially this seems sort of trivial, however if a group is running a critique of one person’s design, naming the owner of the design sort of helps remind the critics of the goal and reminds them to shy away from design suggestions, masked as critiques. A design suggestion, no matter how valid, is not as beneficial as the reason to make the change. Also, there are several ways a single problem may be solved — a critic’s job is to point out the issue and the designer’s job is to design the solution.
Several resources also tell us to remind the group of the original design goals before offering criticism. These goals were set at the start of the project and they should be the initial basis for validating or criticizing a design. Opinions are subjective and vary from person to person, so comparing a design to preset goals are a more objective manner of judging someone’s work. Again, the goal is to ellicit a positive growth in the design not send it’s trajectory into a tailspin as it tries to keep up with several individual’s idea of ‘good’.
Especially in situations where it is a group critique session, critics should write their feedback down before discussing their suggestions. This makes the critic take time to think about which of their suggestions are truly helpful and relate to the goals of the project. Doing this also means that critics commit to their suggestions and criticism is more likely to be varied rather than a single suggestion that others agree with.
My original ideas about participating in constructive criticism — being gracious, sandwiching criticism and compliments, and being cognizant of other’s feelings — are the early elements of constructive criticism. When we, as senders and receivers of feedback, also name the design owner, focus on the design goals, and write our critiques before we speak them, our criticism will be exponentially more constructive; more effective.
