process & strategy
Design critique
What is a design critique?
A design critique is a structured session where a design is examined against its goals and the needs of its users, to surface strengths and problems and improve it. The key word is structured: a good critique is about whether the design solves the problem, grounded in objectives and evidence - not a round of personal opinions about what people happen to like.
Also known as: design critique, design crit, critique
Prefer to watch?
Watch the recap 1:08
The demo
Here's a sign-up screen with a clear goal: get more people to sign up. Now give it feedback two ways - as gut opinion, and as proper critique. See which one the designer can actually use.
What this demo shows (text version)
The same sign-up screen, with the stated goal of increasing sign-ups, receives feedback two ways. The "just opinions" version is taste-based and unactionable - "I don't like the blue", "the font feels off", "I'd have done it differently" - personal preferences the designer can't really act on. The "real critique" version ties each comment to the goal and the user - "the primary button doesn't stand out from the secondary one, so users may miss it, which works against the sign-up goal" - giving specific, actionable, work-focused feedback.
That's the difference a design critique makes: structured feedback measured against goals, users and evidence rather than personal taste. Set the goals up front, focus on the work not the person, separate problems from prescriptions, and build the safety for honest feedback - so critique improves the design instead of just making people defensive.
Good critique judges the design against its goals; bad critique judges it against personal taste. The difference is everything. "I don't like the blue" is an unactionable opinion; "the primary action doesn't stand out, so users may miss it - does it meet the goal of driving sign-ups?" is useful feedback tied to a purpose. A productive critique sets the goals and context up front, focuses on the work not the person, asks questions before giving solutions, and separates problems ("users might struggle here") from prescriptions ("make it green"). It's a tool for improving the design, so frame feedback around objectives, users and evidence - and create the psychological safety that lets people give and receive honest critique without it becoming personal.
"I just don't like it" gives the designer nothing to act on - and stings. "This doesn't meet the goal of X, because users might Y" gives them something to fix - and it's about the work, not them. That's the whole difference between a critique that helps and one that demoralises: tie feedback to goals, users and evidence, not taste. Done well, critique makes the design better; done badly, it just makes people defensive.
Critique exists to improve the work through structured, goal-oriented feedback - distinct from casual opinion-sharing or approval theatre. A productive critique establishes the design's goals, constraints and target users up front (so feedback can be measured against something), focuses on the design rather than the designer, and grounds comments in user needs and evidence rather than personal preference or "I would have done it differently".
A reliable technique is to separate observation, problem and solution: describe what you see, explain the potential problem for the user and why, and (optionally, separately) suggest directions - rather than jumping straight to a prescriptive fix that forecloses better options. Asking questions ("what happens if the user hasn't done X yet?") often surfaces issues more usefully than statements, and keeps ownership with the designer.
Psychological safety is essential: people only give and accept honest critique when it's clearly about the work, not a judgement of them, and when the culture rewards candour over politeness or point-scoring. Run critiques with clear goals, a facilitator if needed, balanced feedback (strengths as well as problems), and respect - both to get better designs and to counter biases like the curse of knowledge and groupthink that creep in when only one perspective is heard.