Figma argues that design critiques should be motivating, useful, and psychologically safe—not intimidating or discouraging. After identifying problems in its own critique process, the team redesigned critiques around clear goals and several formats suited to different stages of design work. The result is a more flexible practice focused on unblocking designers, improving quality, sharing context, and encouraging collaboration.
## Improving the Critique Process
Figma began by “critiquing critiques” and gathering feedback from its design team. Common problems included:
- Overcrowded meetings
- Shallow or unactionable feedback
- Complex problems squeezed into short time limits
- Groupthink, excessive agreement, and reluctance to be honest
- Critiques that failed to help designers move forward
The team documented issues in a shared Figma file, identified the productive and creative energy in that workshop, and continued iterating through a dedicated Slack channel.
## Goals of Design Critique
The team aligned on four primary purposes:
- **Unblocking problems and generating ideas:** Helping designers overcome difficult problems or explore early possibilities.
- **Elevating quality:** Improving visual design, interaction details, and broader product direction.
- **Encouraging consistency:** Reusing established patterns and identifying when new patterns are needed.
- **Sharing context:** Keeping the design team informed about company, product, and project developments.
## Standard Critiques
Standard critiques are structured sessions in which a designer presents work and receives feedback from peers. They are most useful when the presenter explains the project’s context, goals, and specific questions before discussion begins.
- The facilitator keeps the discussion focused and balanced.
- Feedback should be concrete, honest, and actionable.
- Participants should critique the work rather than the person.
- The format works best when the group size and scope are limited.
## Jams and Workshops
Jams and workshops are collaborative formats for situations that need ideas rather than evaluation.
- Designers work together actively instead of simply commenting on a presentation.
- They are useful for early-stage exploration, brainstorming, and complex problems.
- The shared activity reduces the pressure placed on one presenter.
- Their informal, energetic quality can produce the kind of creative collaboration Figma wanted in regular critiques.
## Pair Design
Pair design places two designers together to solve a problem collaboratively.
- One designer can explain their thinking while the other contributes ideas and challenges assumptions.
- The format encourages deeper discussion and immediate iteration.
- It is particularly useful for focused problems that benefit from sustained attention.
- Pairing can produce more actionable feedback than a large-group discussion.
## Silent Critiques
In a silent critique, participants review work and write feedback before discussing it aloud.
- Everyone has time to inspect the work carefully.
- Written comments reduce the influence of the most vocal participants.
- The approach helps limit groupthink and “+1” feedback.
- Discussion can focus on patterns and themes that emerge from the individual responses.
## Paper (“Print-Out”) Critiques
Paper critiques use printed screens or designs placed around a room for participants to annotate.
- Designers can review work at their own pace.
- Feedback is often more detailed and specific than verbal comments.
- The physical format encourages participants to engage directly with the work.
- It is useful for reviewing multiple screens or flows without a presentation dominating the session.
## FYI Critiques
FYI critiques are informational rather than feedback-driven.
- A designer shares work mainly to provide context or visibility.
- Participants are not expected to solve the problem or offer extensive critique.
- This format avoids turning every design review into a decision-making meeting.
- It helps the team stay informed while preserving critique time for work that needs active input.
## Principles for Effective Critiques
Figma’s recommendations emphasize adapting the format to the work and creating a constructive environment:
- Define the purpose of the session in advance.
- Invite only people who can contribute relevant perspective.
- Share context and specific questions before asking for feedback.
- Match the critique format to the project’s stage and needs.
- Use a facilitator to manage time, participation, and focus.
- Encourage direct, respectful, actionable feedback.
- Avoid groupthink and uncritical agreement.
- Separate critique from final decision-making when appropriate.
- Keep sessions focused enough that participants can engage deeply.
- Treat the process as something to continually evaluate and improve.
The practical recommendation is to stop treating critique as a single meeting format. Teams should establish clear goals, experiment with methods such as workshops, pair design, silent reviews, and FYI updates, and regularly assess whether critiques are genuinely helping designers feel inspired, challenged, and empowered.
