After years of running design critiques that went nowhere, I built a structured method. Here’s the whole thing, if you want to steal it.
4 rules. 4 roles. 1 format for presenting.
The rules:
1. You are not your design. Criticism of the work is not criticism of you. If a review ends with zero criticism, all we did was waste everyone’s time.
2. Be kind. Rule 1 is hard. So help the presenter out. “I don’t know why you put those elements so far apart” and “I was curious about the constraints that led to that spacing decision, can you tell us more?” lead to the same conversation — one just doesn’t put anyone on the defensive.
3. Participate. Giving good feedback is a skill. It has to be learned, and then practiced to stay sharp. Everyone in the room is there to practice it. Sitting quietly isn’t an option.
4. Have fun. Getting your work reviewed doesn’t have to be terrifying. We’re all on the same team, so let’s have some fun along the way.
The roles:
Presenter: shares their work. Their only job is to show up prepared
Note taker: captures feedback on behalf of the presenter so they can stay in the conversation instead of furiously writing things down. The note taker is whoever presented last time. (If your meeting software supports AI note-taking and your company allows it, this role may not be needed — but the human version has some advantages worth keeping in mind.)
Moderator: keeps things moving and makes sure everyone speaks up, including calling on people directly if needed. The most important part of the moderator’s job is watching the tone of the room and stepping in when it goes sideways — rephrasing questions, redirecting the conversation, reorienting the group toward something supportive. The moderator is whoever presents next time.
Reviewers: everyone else. All of them are required to give feedback. No passengers.
The rotation isn’t arbitrary. The note taker just experienced firsthand what useful notes are worth to a presenter — so they’re motivated to do it well. The moderator is looking toward their own upcoming critique and doesn’t want the room to get abrasive — so they have real skin in the game when it comes to keeping things on track. The roles are self-reinforcing by design.
The presenting format:
Before showing any screens, the presenter covers 5 things:
- Who is the persona?
- What is the design trying to accomplish?
- How do competitors or peers approach the problem?
- What research has been done and what did it find?
- The design itself.
Context before screens. Every time.
What does your team’s critique process look like?