A structured review session where a design is evaluated against project goals, user needs, and design principles rather than personal taste. A productive critique separates observation from interpretation, anchors feedback in evidence, and produces actionable direction — not vague suggestions to 'make it pop'.
Common contexts
- Running a weekly critique where each designer presents work in progress against a stated goal, not for approval
- Structuring critique feedback as 'I notice / I wonder / what if' to separate observation from opinion
- Using design principles as the evaluation framework in a critique to depersonalize disagreements
Use when
Schedule critique early and regularly — during exploration, not just before handoff. Critique is most valuable when the designer still has room to change direction; feedback given on a nearly-final design is expensive to act on and easy to dismiss as impractical.
Avoid when
A critique is not a sign-off meeting — bringing a design to critique when the goal is approval rather than improvement suppresses honest feedback and trains the team to treat critique as a performance rather than a tool. If the decision is already made, say so; don't call it a critique.
The best thing a design critique can do is give a designer permission to throw away something they've already invested in — that only happens if the room feels safe enough to say 'I don't think this is the right direction.'
Real-world examples
- Google Design holds weekly critique sessions where designers present work-in-progress, with feedback structured around goals, observations, and questions rather than subjective preferences.
- Figma's design team uses a 'crit doc' template—a shared Figma file with a structured agenda—so presenters can define what kind of feedback they need before the session begins.
- IDEO encourages a 'yes, and' critique culture borrowed from improv, where reviewers must build on ideas rather than only identifying problems, keeping creative momentum high.