Build a Portfolio that Sells. Join our Free Bootcamp.
How to Give Good Critique
A lot of the thinking in this post was inspired by design director and ADPList mentor Guy Segal, who articulated this framework better than we’ve heard it put before. If you get a chance to hear him talk about critique, we highly recommend it.
Why Unstructured Feedback Rarely Helps
When feedback has no structure, a few things tend to happen. People comment on whatever catches their attention first, which is often cosmetic. Without context, reviewers don’t know what stage the work is at or what problem it’s trying to solve, so their feedback misses the point. And because there’s no agreed-on way to give feedback, comments drift toward personal taste rather than useful observations.
The result is feedback that feels random at best and discouraging at worst.
Good critique works differently. It’s focused, it has a clear purpose, and it treats the design as something to understand before it’s evaluated.
How to Structure a Good Critique
A good critique generally breaks down into three steps. The designer handles the first one. The reviewer handles the last two.
Step 1 (Designer): Set up the right questions
Before anyone looks at the work, the designer sets the scene. This means explaining what stage the design is at, what problem it’s solving, and specifically what kind of feedback they’re looking for. It also means calling out what they’re not looking for, so reviewers know where to focus.
A simple way to think about it: fill in this template before you post.
“I’m at the [early exploration / mid-stage / near-final] stage of this project. I’m working on [what you’re designing] and trying to solve [the problem]. I’m looking for feedback on [specific thing]. I’m not looking for feedback on [what to ignore].”
For example: “I’m at the early exploration stage of this project. I’m working on a logo and trying to nail the concept and overall shape. I’m looking for feedback on whether the idea is coming through. I’m not looking for feedback on colors yet.”
That framing does a lot of work. If you know the designer is in an early exploration phase, you’re not going to nitpick the color palette. If they’ve flagged that copy is placeholder, you’re not going to comment on the words.
Step 2 (Reviewers): Start with what’s working
A compliment sandwich is when you open with something nice, pile on the problems, then close with encouragement to soften the blow. It’s well-intentioned, but everyone can see through it. The moment someone leads with a compliment, you’re already bracing for what comes next. It doesn’t reduce the sting; it just delays it.
Starting with what’s working is different, and the distinction matters. When you name what’s actually landing in the design, you’re giving the designer genuinely useful information: these are the parts you don’t need to touch. That helps them protect the decisions that are already doing their job and focus their energy on what actually needs rethinking, rather than second-guessing everything once the feedback comes in.
The compliment sandwich is about managing feelings. Starting with what works is about giving the designer a complete picture of their own work.
Step 3 (Reviewers): Get into what needs work
Instead of telling the designer what’s wrong or what they should do differently, reviewers ask questions. The two words that make this easier to remember: “have you.”
“Have you considered how this layout works on mobile?” lands completely differently than “this layout doesn’t work on mobile.” One opens a conversation. The other closes it.
Starting with “have you” removes the assumption that the reviewer knows better. It acknowledges that the designer may have already explored that direction and had reasons for moving away from it. If they have, they can share that context. If they haven’t, the question becomes a useful prompt rather than a judgment.
This approach keeps things collaborative. Everyone is working to understand the design and help it get better, rather than one person auditing another’s decisions.
On Receiving Critique
Getting feedback well is its own skill. When responses come in, the most useful thing you can do is read them without immediately defending your decisions. Let the questions land. You don’t have to reply to everything right away.
Give yourself time to sit with what you heard before making changes. Not every piece of feedback will be right for the work, and that’s fine. The goal isn’t to act on everything; it’s to make better decisions with more information.
And then come back. The more you go through this process, the more natural it becomes. The discomfort of showing unfinished work fades. The feedback gets easier to use. And the work keeps getting better.
Why This Matters
Most designers don’t have access to a group of experienced peers who will look at their work honestly and help them improve. A lot of people are working alone, freelancing, or on teams where design culture isn’t strong enough to make critique feel safe.
Thriveful exists to fill that gap. Not just with a tool, but with a process that makes feedback worth giving and worth receiving.
