7 sins of a design reviewer
Early in my career, I had the fortune to get trained with mavericks, design mavericks. And, oh boy! Those designers had a temperament. In a design review, there were only two outcomes — bin or in! Very often young designers like me were the dartboards of unidentified flying objects. Being in those situations was an emotional roller coaster that took the route of self-doubt, anger, frustration, confusion, and jubilation! Many called quits, some of us stayed put and imbibed the culture.
Some years later, when I started my own design studio, reviews remained the same as I had learnt them early in my career — in fact there was no other known way. Armed with the temper of my early teachers — things started backfiring. My studio’s best people started leaving! Caught between believing what is right and the right way to do it, I realised that the way to run design reviews needs an immediate change. And, the change had to come from within.
Being subjective
In the gazillions of design reviews I conducted as a design owner, the first sin I realised was being subjective. And, this either demoralised or confused the designers and did not help the process of design.
So, the first change was to remove ways of critique that do not help designers do better:
- Not Vague: I tried not being vague and say “I hate it” or “I absolutely love it”
- Not Judgmental: It is very difficult being non-judgmental if you have been a designer earlier. However, I tried to not say “this is incorrect” or “this is right”
- Not Personal: Removing people from their design was very difficult for me. I am still trying not to say “you are so stupid” or “you are awesome”
Unhelpful with solution relevance
While evaluating student design projects in design schools, little did I realise that students would dread to be in my reviews. The brave ones dared to ask me about why the design solution was good or bad. And, more often than not, I found myself asking the young designers to take me through user life-cycles.
The sharp ones immediately understood where their solutions fit the life of the users and why their solutions were either ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Not helping every young designer understand the relevance of their solution with regard to the user lifecycle remained my second sin.
Over a period of time, walkthroughs started becoming the cornerstone of my reviews with every student as well as in my studio! And yes, I found more friends in those students.
These are some of the questions I ask to overcome my second sin:
- Take me though the user life cycle before, during, and immediately after the problem.
- Whose problem is it?
- What large user problem are you trying to solve?
- What are the smaller user problems that make up this large problem?
Biased towards visual appeal
A well-dressed pig can pass off like a racehorse — design as a profession is highly visual. Not just me, but great designers do get biased with ‘how good it looks.’ In absence of clear judgment parameters, I have evaluated many solutions solely on the quality of ‘visual appeal’ — my third sin that keeps haunting me.
Rely too heavily on heuristics
When I started working with Pramati, a company that made very high-end technology products, way back in the 90s, I worked with the very best software programmers.
While the good ones were worried about the quality of code, the best of them described success criteria before writing a line of code. It was fascinating for a young usability engineer. I always wondered how can design imbibe that practice.
Many years later, it started becoming clear to me that ‘outcome of design’ is a great evaluation criteria. And the outcome of design is user behaviour change, not just focusing on heuristics alone.
I started asking these questions to designers during reviews:
- What are the expected user behaviour changes (outcome) after ’any solution’ to this problem?
- How do you think we should measure the outcomes?
- When do you think we measure the outcomes?
Pitching alternate solutions
While designers were expecting an honest critique from me, sitting on a judge’s chair, it was a natural extension to provide alternative solutions. Many agreed for the respect of it, while others frowned! I was guilty of pushing my own solutions, my fourth sin. People tell me that my itch to provide solutions is still very strong.
- I am trying to avoid saying “If I were you, I would have done it this way” or “try this way…”
- Sometimes when I have very clear solutions to the designer’s problem, I ask the designer to critique it.
Prescriptive reviews
My biggest, and my fifth sin, has been jumping to conclusions very quickly. I always ‘told’ people about the quality of their design, but then I am realising the power of people discovering the quality of their design and owning it.
My reviews are changing from prescriptive to exploratory:
- Take me though your solutions while describing the usage life cycle
- How does this solution solve the problem?
- How does this solution achieve the expected user behaviour change (outcome)?
- Which solution provides better outcomes? why?
Not completely present
In the past few years, access to internet search that provides all answers has invaded my life. And, design reviewers are no gods, they believe that search has many answers. I am guilty of bringing devices to reviews and checking up facts online while conducting the review, ensuring that I lose trust. The resolution for my sixth sin is to be fully in the review:
- Resolve to be in the review with heart & soul
- Resolve to keep laptop, phone, and other notification providing devices away
Leaving without summarising
The responsibility of the reviewer does not end with the review, in fact it is the beginning of a relationship with the problem and solution.
To ensure that you and the designer are on the same page doing the next review, it is the responsibility of the reviewer to summarise. While I do make notes, the lazy me probably will always be guilty of not summarising well — my last sin!
Which of these design review sins are you guilty of?
