“Three Forms of Feedback” and My Thoughts on Design Critique
This was originally written as an email to my then boss (ages ago!), but having shared essentially the same message now at several subsequent companies, I figured it might be useful to share publicly…
⚠️ NOTE: The ‘three forms of feedback’ text is copied from Adam Connor & Aaron Irizarry’s book Discussing Design: Improving Communication and Collaboration through Critique, with some light edits for my purposes; what follows are my personal reflections on critique.
It’s good to recognize and distinguish between the three forms of feedback, all of which vary in their degree of usefulness in the design process.
1. Reaction-Based Feedback
Reaction-Based Feedback tends to be emotional or visceral. It happens quickly and instinctively. This type of feedback is often filled with passion. It’s driven by someone’s personal expectations, desires, and values. Essentially, it’s a gut reaction.
“Good Lord! That’s awful! An inebriated cocker spaniel could do better!”
At best, this kind of reactive feedback informs us about the subconscious reaction the viewer has to what’s been designed. These kinds of reactions are good to understand — it’s not ideal to stand behind something that potential users are going to cringe at or grumble about the second they see it. More often, this kind of reaction is hard for a designer to respond to, as it rarely factors in the other considerations that led to that specific design decision, nor does it consider other problems that may be created by simply responding to the reaction-based feedback. Moreover, reaction-based feedback can be viewed as an uninformed attack and may put the designer on the defensive.
2. Direction-Based Feedback
Direction-Based Feedback typically begins with instruction or suggestion. In many cases that’s also where it ends. In this form of feedback, the individual providing it is often looking for ways to bring the design more in line with their own expectations of what the solution should be.
“You should have made all of those radio buttons a drop down, because…”
With direction-based feedback, the individual is trying to communicate her own vision for the design. It might be because she has her own detailed solution already in mind, or it might be that she feels a problem is not being adequately solved. It might be that she has prior experiences that the designer should heed. In some cases, the individual will go on to describe why she is making the suggestion, which can shed a bit more light on her thinking and motives.
Similar to reaction-based feedback, direction-based feedback without any supporting explanation indicates nothing about the effectiveness of a design decision in meeting the stated objective(s). For situations in which the individual also gives some explanation as to why she is making the suggestion, the designer can begin to understand the impetus and perhaps the issue she’s trying to address with the feedback.
3. Critique
Critique is most helpful to understand the impact of design decisions. Good critique asks:
- What is the objective of the design?
- What elements of the design are related to the objective?
- Are those elements effective in achieving the objective?
- Why or why not?
“If the objective is for users to seriously consider the impact to their bank balance before making a purchase, placing the balance at the bottom, the same size as all the other numbers, isn’t effective because it gets lost in all of the other information.”
Good critique seeks to objectively understand both the decision and the problem that decision is trying to solve. Critique isn’t about that instant reaction we might feel when seeing something, or about how we would change the design to better solve an issue. Critique is a form of analysis that uses critical thinking to determine whether a design is expected to achieve its desired objectives.
As I said at the beginning, these ‘three forms of feedback’ are from Adam Connor & Aaron Irizarry’s book Discussing Design: Improving Communication and Collaboration through Critique — you should check it out!
That clarified, here are my additional thoughts…
My Personal Reflections on Design Critique
In many respects, critique is similar to Steven Covey’s “seek first to understand, before being understood” habit. It’s suspending judgement to see things how another person sees things, in order to have a more fruitful conversation. But, suspending judgement is really hard. I’ve found that people are quick to assimilate foreign ideas, and slow (if ever) to change their perspectives to accommodate a different idea (reference to Piaget there). I’ve found that familiarity bias is a strong and powerful thing — especially when it comes to design critique. Often what “feels right” is really what is familiar to that person. This can be a good thing — much of what makes something “usable” is about recognizing familiar patterns. But, this preference for the familiar, especially if unconscious and unchecked, can be a detriment. Innovations (and failures) come from the fringes, where people are willing to try new things out — things that at first feel uncomfortable — but if backed by good, solid reasoning, can become the norm copied by others within a few years. This is true of novel design decisions. This is true of naming projects. This is true of business model innovations.
We understand and relate to things by how similar they are to things we’ve encountered previously. Stepping outside of this familiarity bias, to objectively assess matters—during a creative process—is a hard skill to develop.
How has this thinking changed how I give design feedback?
I do generally have Reaction-Based Feedback, but I make sure to qualify it as such. “This feels very busy” or “Wow. That shade of blue is quite… chalky?!” I then try to unpack why it feels that way and what might not be good about that decision. Again, I qualify this kind of feedback with something like “this is just a reaction, for what it’s worth.”
I do give Direction-Based Feedback, if only because I’ve encountered a lot of common design challenges and patterns in my time. But, I’m open to a less than stellar solution being attempted again, given how context can dramatically change outcomes. I try to signal when I’m giving direction-based feedback with phrases like “I’m going to meddle now…” or “If I was designing this…” or if I am less directly involved (e.g. not a direct report or not directly responsible), I’ll first ask for an invitation to give this kind of feedback. In all cases, I try to always couple direction-based feedback with the rationale (why I think what I think), such that it can be challenged objectively.
If I’m being honest, Critique (questioning to understand or encourage reflection) is hard. I do try to open with Critique, but more often back into it.
With a junior to mid-level designer, I might give a good blend of Direction-Based Feedback and Critique. With a very senior-level designer, given her talent and experience, I almost always stick to Critique, asking questions about why she made the choices she did, before challenging the effectiveness of these decisions (with folks at this level of experience, anything less than Critique is often met with stiff resistance; questioning is the best way to open doors to reflection and understanding—all around). These critique-focused conversations almost always lead to fruitful dialogue where we (as a team) learn and the design is better for it. I also have to factor in a different kind of familiarity bias — a bias in favor of trendy ‘designerly’ styles and patterns that may or may not be appropriate for the end users. These often lead into debates as to what are lasting improvements over the status quo vs what are temporary design trends.
Two final comments:
- The Perils of Reductionism
Design is focused on the whole, how all the parts interrelate and come together. The parts and detailed decisions are critical, but so is the entirety of the experience.
[Cue up a classic systems thinking quote from Russell Ackoff:]
No individual part of a car can move you on its own — not the wheel, the axle, the seat, or the engine. But a car can. And if you take a car apart, you no longer have a car: you simply have the pieces, because “a system is not the sum of the behavior of its parts; it’s the product of their interactions.”
While it’s necessary to break things down to small parts in order to estimate and manage product delivery, this reductionist approach—when applied to design critique—can lose sight of the whole; this leads to micro-decisions that may seem right in the moment, but fail to consider the broader context and implications. Similar to Gestalt psychology, “the experience is other than the sum of the parts.” I mention this, as feedback is often directed as very specific touchpoints, but can often overlook the broader system of concerns. A good designer juggles both the contextual feedback, but also this broader system of concerns.
2. The Necessity of Framing Feedback
It’s critical for designers to frame the kind of feedback they’re looking for. If they haven’t done so, then I’ll try to ask these questions on their behalf.
- “What kind of feedback are you looking for, or not looking for?”
- “Any constraints we should be aware of?”
- “How far along are you in the process?”
- “Where does this fit into a broader flow? Is that flow up for discussion?”
- “What problem(s) are you trying to solve for? What does success look like, here?”
- “Is there customer research or feedback we should be aware of?”
And so on.
Even something seemingly small, like asking for feedback on a button label, can open larger (and longer) conversations about flow, consistency, or similarly broad concerns. Clarifying the scope of feedback needed — up front — can lead to more productive outcomes, and a better use of everyone’s time.
