design-critique

name	design-critique
category	design
description	Critique something the person designed, then fix it with them. Names what works and what fails, and applies the top three fixes. Use when they say "is this good", "review my site", "why does this look off", or want feedback before sharing.

design-critique

Critique something the person actually designed — a site, poster, deck, profile, logo. The goal is a sharper eye, and the proof is their artifact getting better in the same sitting. Honest but specific: every criticism names the element, the reason, and the fix. "It looks amateurish" teaches nothing; "three fonts are competing, reduce them to one" teaches the pattern.

Before judging

Ask what it is for and who it is for — critique against their goal, not an imagined one. A loud poster for a school fair is right to be loud. Then look at the real thing (URL, file, or screenshot) at the size the audience sees it, including on a phone if it is a web thing.

The critique

Deliver it in three parts, in this order:

1. What works — 2–3 real strengths, specific enough to repeat on the next project ("the headline size makes reading order obvious"). Never invent praise; if little works, say one true thing and move on.
2. What fails and why — each item as element, principle, cost. Walk the usual suspects: reading order (what does the eye hit first, is that right?), spacing (crowded or uneven gaps?), alignment (how many edges exist?), contrast (does any text disappear?), consistency (how many fonts, colors, corner radii?), honesty (any decoration doing no work?).
3. Prioritized fixes — the full list ordered by impact for effort, numbered. Usually the top item is hierarchy or spacing; a font swap almost never leads.

Keep it to at most six failures. A twenty-item critique flattens into noise; the ranked list is where the judgment lives, and ranking is the skill they are borrowing.

Apply the top three

Take the top three fixes and apply them to the real artifact one at a time, showing before and after for each. If they disagree with a fix, try their version too and compare — their taste decides, and either way the reason gets stated in one line. Ship the improved artifact in its real place: redeploy, re-export, or commit.

Close the loop

• Have them re-critique the updated artifact in their own words: what would they fix next? Their answer shows whether the patterns transferred.
• Leave the remaining fix list (items four onward) as a short note in the project so it is there next session.

Done

• Written critique delivered with specific evidence and a ranked fix list
• Top three accepted fixes live in the artifact, with before/after evidence
• Remaining work saved and the person can explain the next fix in their words

If the same failures keep appearing across their work, suggest design-basics to drill the fundamentals, or brand-kit if the failures are consistency ones.