Welcome To My Ted Talk

A few days ago, my team began discussing best practices around design critiques, and the idea of a having a very structured way of going about them. What came up, was a discussion about this all too common, and explicit, rule:

Critique the work and not the designer.

I’ve always been slightly annoyed at this line, especially in the context of where I work: a corporate monolith of a machine. It’s become part of this trendy repertoire that we say, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

To say to critique the work and not the designer is as to say that you shouldn’t lie, or you shouldn’t kill. It’s common sense, but some folk are going to do it anyway.

Let’s be clear on something: Anyone maliciously attacking anyone on the grounds of protected (or should be protected) things, should slip on a banana and get an anvil dropped on them – like the cartoons. That’s not what this line is getting at though.

The idea behind the line is to put critics and makers at ease during a crit (critique) session. This is a common need when people are new to this ritual. It’s very easy to feel uncomfortable both as a critic and a maker; It’s one thing to share work and get criticism, but also another to be in the mindset to actually give that criticism. Often, there is a fear of offending, or of sounding stupid.

So while I understand the intent behind this line, and the thousand other variations found online, I don’t think that it works well in our field. In fact, I think that it actually creates an environment that dilutes the ritual of critique, compromising the value we get in return.

Why We Should Go Beyond “Work”

Higher Quality of Design Work

Importance of Process

When we “critique the work and not the designer”, and do so literally, we take it to mean that we should only critique what we can physically see on the screen that is being presented to us; By consequence, we are to exclude all the work that is not shown to us. Often, this means we won’t review the process work that was done to get to that point.

My issue lies in that last part when we exclude the process work. As product designers, our work goes beyond screens, and tackles experience and service design problems in ways that may or may not result in UI solutions. To crit only User Interface (UI) work, we put most of what we do out of scope. Even more so, if you have a high performing team, limited crits can start losing their value. Frankly, after a certain point, visual design becomes semantics and opinions; Above a certain threshold of quality, it doesn’t really matter how it’s executed on a screen. However, it’s how the story got pieced together that really showcases a designer’s mastery of the skill, and opportunities for development.

To illustrate what I mean, let’s use basic math. 

You can add like this to get to 10:
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 

… or like this:
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+2=10

… or like this:
1+3+1+1+2+2=10

And ultimately, you can add like this to get to 10: 
0+10, 1+9, 3+7, 5+5, etc.

In the last example, we can see how much more efficiently we are getting to 10 than the first example; the reason being, that we can see the process and analyze it. While all four lanes succeeded in getting to 10, some are working smarter than others and in that there is a command of the tool being used.

This is similar to our design practice. When we just focus on the end result of our efforts that result in screens, we miss out on learning from how to improve everything else that we did. We can’t learn from our process because it’s not on display.

It’s important to point out that in the last, “better”, for example, there is more than one efficient way to get to 10. That’s because everyone’s style is different! Ultimately, in design, there’s always more than one way to get to the right answer. Experience might lead you down one path, but ingenuity can lead you to another: Both routes are valid. In fact, by allowing our design process to be explored, we might find that another way feels better. IN FACT, we might find that multiplication, not addition, suits us best… and down the rabbit hole, we go. The point is that our process is something that is always maturing, and getting refined.

Unlike visual design, I don’t think it’s possible to outgrow improving how we doing things; Elegant processes produce smart, refined solutions.

Enabling Less Process

The absence of process in critiques means it’s not expected to be reviewed. No one is supposed to see it; It is something that will stay private with designers, mistakenly signaling that what matters is the what and the how is irrelevant.

When something is irrelevant, we care less and can be less deliberate about it, whether or not we do it on purpose. We inadvertently lower the bar, simply because it’s not valid to critique the process someone took to get to their end result.

For example, an inexperienced designer may think that they are fantastic, just because they’re a great visual designer; They would never know that they could be designing smarter, more intentional, with sophisticated specificity. A designer who is uninterested and slacking can put in minimal work and still get by, enabling complacency. Finally, a seasoned designer who thinks they know everything that they need to know may jump straight to solutions instead of slowing down and thinking critically.

For me, when I think back to the moments that forced me to evolve my practice, they all deal with getting my process critiqued. It called out the skips in logic that I had followed, the wrong pivot I took, the bumpy way an observer was set up to consume it, and the lack of ability to stand my ground on a decision. Overall, getting critiqued in that way set a higher production value by demanding stronger critical thinking skills.

Higher Quality of Crit Sessions

Validation of Fears

Instead of convincing new critics and designers that their fears of offending and being offended are misguided, saying “critique the work and not the designer” not only validates that they exist, but gives them permission to exist. This exponentially increases the pressure of a critique session: To explicitly instruct to critique the work, and not the designer, draws a line in the sand that shall not be crossed.

Instead, I recommend explaining that offense is not possible.

For a critic, they should be reminded and enabled to not fear anything. The intent of a crit session is to hear their personal opinions and to have them connect what they see with their areas of expertise. More importantly though, these sessions are often occurring in controlled environments that are, above all else, private and welcoming. The sentiment of “stupid questions don’t exist” has never been truer! Acknowledging that their feelings of discomfort and hesitancy are normal, is a good first step.

For designers, they should be reminded that as creators and makers of things, what we put out to the world isn’t ours to own or protect. The moment we share it with an audience or a friend, we relinquish all rights to it; Tying it to our own sense of self-worth is futile because we are not our work. There’s a maturity in that, and also in the skill of listening, understanding, and shifting perspective to see different angles. It can be scary but remembering that crit sessions are opportunities to view your work from a different lens helps.

Overall, in the critiqued vs critic relationship, the individual who’s standing up in front of the room getting filleted should be the one in power and in control. Not only do I think it’s fair, considering their work is getting filleted, but it sets up a designer to be able to deliver a crafted message, guide conversations, and tease out feedback. It also forces a designer to practice restraint and maturity when receiving feedback – An incredible skill for life and poker.

Refining Debate and Communication

How we designers should think of ourselves in relation to our work, is as owners. While our creations are here to be hated, to be loved, or to be misunderstood as directed, we’re here to make sure we elicit the response desired and craft that narrative around them.

This includes how we present and discuss our work with others, including during the crit process. It also includes every other instance where we practice the delivery of our thoughts and explanations, the actual words we use, how we manage an audience, radiate presence, tease out information, and massage a conversation, among other things. There are so many aspects to communication that are critical to the success of a design, that by nature, are part of critiques. However, by saying “critique the work”, we’re deliberately excluding these performances that are so critical to crit sessions.

Most people will agree: To do the work is only half the challenge; The other half is telling others about it. 

Another aspect is that sometimes we designers forget that feedback doesn’t mean mandate. Crits are designed to give designers feedback; Feedback is optional. In the event where the feedback is actually a mandate, it often is misrepresented as such, and not really a mandate. In my experience, very few mandates turn out to be explicitly as originally shared.

In the end, us designers need to be able to listen to critics critically, ask questions, and deliberate to dig deeper. We should curate what we’re going to take away and act upon what we deem necessary. It is an exercise in the ownership and authority of our work.

—

All of this and more, is why I think it should be fair game for a critique to go beyond the work presented.

Never to attack, or to belittle, but rather to dig deeper and understand what lead to this happy ending. Where are we? Why are we here? Why did we get here? What other exits were there? What did it look like down that exit? or the other exit? Oh, wow! How did we end up in Narnia?! This is amazing!!!