Design Critique Sessions

🤦🏻 “How We Run Design Critiques at Figma” (https://lnkd.in/eERQmRnY), an honest case study by Noah Levin with helpful techniques and templates to run more effective design critiques ↓ 🚫 Most critiques are an avalanche of unstructured opinions. ✅ Good critiques are inspiring, and give you a plan of action. ✅ Critiques work best with 2–6 people in the room. ✅ Explain the problem before showing any work. ✅ Reiterate previous findings, decisions and research. ✅ Explain how far you are: 30%, 60% or 90% done. ✅ Explain what kind of feedback you are looking for. ✅ No Keynote/Powerpoint: Figma link + Observation mode. ✅ Assign a note-taker to capture key points (Google Doc). ✅ Show what you want to show: feedback is shaped by that. 🚀 Critique formats: 🎡 Round-the-room: everyone voices their feedback (2min / person). 🍿 Popcorn: freeform comments for flowing conversation. 🥁 Jams: for early explorations with brainstorms, group sketching. 🫱🏻🫲🏾 Pair design: for deep collaboration on a problem (small groups). 🤫 Silent critiques: for a large volume of written, structured feedback. 📋 Paper print-out: for complex flows and reviewing more at once. 📣 FYI critiques: for sharing context and invite feedback later. Design critiques are about applying critical thinking. It’s about how well a current iteration of design does what it’s trying to do. However, designers alone often don’t have the full picture. Don’t necessarily reserve critiques to design teams only: invite developers and stakeholders and PMs for early feedback. Don’t ask what people think — ask how well the design tackles a specific problem. And probably the most important thing is to enable a flowing conversations. Invite everyone to ask, to doubt, to scrutinize, but stay on point and gather structured feedback: that’s when good critiques emerge. Useful resources: Practical Design Critique Guide, by Darrin Henein https://lnkd.in/ey_cGKuc Mastering Design Critiques, by Jonny Czar https://lnkd.in/e_BYwNwf Anti-Behavior in Design Critiques, and How To Handle Them, by Ben Crothers https://lnkd.in/e4UrpsPs --- ⛵ Figma and Miro Templates Design Critique Meetings Guide (Figma), by Overflow https://lnkd.in/dE85MUAK Design Critique Template (Figma), by Janus Tiu https://lnkd.in/dCYp2MSY Design Critique Meeting (Figma), by Rodrigo Javier Peña https://lnkd.in/dP_8pCug Design Critique Playground Template (Miro), by Miroslava Jovicic https://lnkd.in/eryJShRd #ux #design

If I had a system design interview tomorrow at Google, this is exactly how I’d approach it.   (This framework helped me crack 3 FAANG+ companies in the past, including Amazon.)  Most engineers fail system design interviews not because they lack knowledge but because they lack structure.  You don’t need to memorize 100 architectures. You need a structured and easy-to-apply approach that works every time.  Here’s how I break it down:   1/ Clarify the Problem Before Writing Anything   - System design interviews aren’t about throwing buzzwords—they’re about trade-offs.   - Start with scoping → Are we designing just one feature or the entire system?   - Ask constraints upfront → How many users? Read/write ratio? Latency requirements?   - Define success criteria → What matters most? Scalability? Cost? Low-latency?  Most candidates assume things and jump into solutions.   I make sure I know what we’re solving before I even start.   2/ Define Functional & Non-Functional Requirements Clearly   - Functional: What features does the system need?   - Non-functional: What are the performance expectations?   - What’s the biggest technical challenge? (This helps guide the discussion.)  Example: If we’re designing YouTube, is the focus on video uploads, recommendations, or live streaming?   Each has a different set of constraints.   3/ Estimate the Scale & Plan Capacity Like an Engineer   - Users per second? Requests per second?   - Storage needs? If we store 10MB per user and have 100M users, what does that mean?   - Throughput? Can a single database handle the load, or do we need sharding?  Most candidates throw random numbers.   I do quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations to validate my assumptions.   4/ Break the System into Core Components (High-Level Design)   - Define the major building blocks → API Gateway, Load Balancer, Service Layers, Databases.   - Don’t overcomplicate. Simple and scalable always wins.   - Clearly define the interactions between services.  If I’m designing a messaging app, I break it down into:   — User Service (auth, profiles)   — Messaging Service (storing chats)   — Notification Service (real-time updates)   — Media Storage (for images, videos)  Each has different constraints, so I build around what’s most important.  Continued Here: https://lnkd.in/eiHQs-qT P.S. Preparing for a software engineering interview? Check out my book, System Design and Behavioral Intelligence. It will help you: • Build strong System Design foundations and approach design problems with confidence • Develop practical frameworks to navigate complex behavioral and leadership challenges 📘 Paperback available on Amazon internationally: https://mybook.to/systemdesignbehavioralhttps://lnkd.in/eiHQs-qT P.S. Preparing for a software engineering interview? Check out my book, System Design and Behavioral Intelligence. It will help you: • Build strong System Design foundations and approach design problems with confidence • Develop practical frameworks to navigate complex behavioral and leadership challenges 📘 Paperback available on Amazon internationally: https://mybook.to/systemdesignbehavioral Check it out!

🤔 How might you infuse more experiential elements into even the most standard Q&A session? This was my question to myself when wrapping up a facilitation course for a client that included a Q&A session. I wanted to be sure it complemented the other experiential sessions and was aligned with the positive adjectives of how participants had already described the course. First and foremost - here is my issue with Q&As: 👎 They are only focused on knowledge transfer, but not not memory retention (the brain does not absorb like a sponge, it catches what it experiences!) 👎 They tend to favor extroverts willing to ask their questions out loud 👎 Only a small handful of people get their questions answered and they may not be relevant for everyone who attends So, here is how I used elements from my typical #experiencedesign process to make even a one-directional Q&A more interactive and engaging: 1️⃣ ENGAGE FROM THE GET-GO How we start a meeting sets the tone, so I always want to engage everyone on arrival. I opted for music and a connecting question in the chat connected to why we were there - facilitation! 2️⃣ CONNECTION BEFORE CONTENT Yes, people were there to have their questions answered, but I wanted to bring in their own life experience having applied their new found facilitation skills into practice. We kicked off with breakout rooms in small groups to share their own experiences- what had worked well and what was still challenging. This helped drive the questions afterwards. 3️⃣ MAKE THE ENGAGEMENT EXPLICIT Even if it was a Q&A, I wanted to be clear about how THIS one would be run. I set up some guidelines and also gave everyone time to individually think and reflect what questions they wanted to ask. We took time with music playing for the chat to fill up. 4️⃣ COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IS MOST IMPACTFUL Yes, they were hoping to get my insights and answers, however I never want to discredit the wisdom and lived experience in the room. As we walked through the questions, I invited others to also share their top tips and answers. Peer to peer learning is so rich in this way! 5️⃣ CLOSING WITH ACTIONS AND NEVER QUESTIONS The worst way to end any meeting? "Are there any more questions?" Yes, even in a Q & A! Once all questions were answered, I wanted to land the journey by asking everyone to reflect on what new insights or ideas emerged for them from the session and especially what they will act upon and apply forward in their work. Ending with actions helps to close one learning cycle and drive forward future experiences when they put it to the test! The session received great reviews and it got me thinking - we could really apply these principles to most informational sessions that tend to put content before connection (and miss the mark). 🤔 What do you think? Would you take this approach to a Q&A? Let me know in the comments below👇 #ExperienceLearningwithRomy

The Week Before Your Workshop Determines Its Success … After leading more than 1,000 workshops across the world, there’s one golden rule I’ve learned: Preparation, preparation, preparation. The week before your workshop is not the time to relax — it’s the moment to make or break your success. Here’s what great preparation looks like: • Know exactly who will be in the room — their names, their roles, their personalities, and their interests. • Understand their stakes — what motivates them, what worries them, what they hope to get out of the session. • Design your flow carefully — tailor your techniques and tactics to fit the group, not just the agenda. • Practise, practise, practise — rehearse key moments, transitions, and how you’ll handle tricky situations. • Visualise success — mentally walk through the day: how will you open, how will you energise, how will you land your key messages? Even after 1,000+ workshops with the proven FORTH Innovation Method I still practise before every session I facilitate. Not because I’m nervous — but because respecting the group means showing up 100% prepared. Great workshops are not spontaneous magic. They are the result of disciplined preparation behind the scenes. The real work happens before you even enter the room. #Preparation #WorkshopFacilitation #Leadership #InnovationWorkshops #FacilitatorTips #WorkshopDesign #PracticeMakesPerfect #designthinking #innovation

Most designers prep for interviews like actors. Memorize lines. Rehearse expressions. Hope they nailed the performance. But here’s the shift that changes everything: Interview prep isn’t theatre. It’s UX research. You’re not there to impress — you’re there to empathize, explore, and offer real solutions. Let me show you how: → Research the company like a problem space Not just the “About” page — dig into products, business model, user pain points. Be the person who already gets how they work. → Read the JD like a UX brief What are they optimizing for? Where are the gaps? Frame your story to fill those. → Study interviewers like users What do they care about? What patterns show up in their posts or projects? Tailor your conversation to resonate. → Practice your stories using CARL No more rambling answers. Anchor each point in Context, Action, Result, and Learning. Simple. Clear. Memorable. → Ask questions that challenge, not flatter “Where is UX stuck right now in your company?” “What would make your life easier if I joined tomorrow?” Stop performing. Start problem-solving. Because hiring isn’t about perfection. It’s about trust. And trust comes from someone who shows up ready to contribute — not just to impress. UX or UX theatre — which one are you prepping for?

When someone says “Design a product,” It doesn’t mean create a wireframe or mockup. It means: "Show me how you think" Because in product management, design is about structured thinking, not screens. As part of Product Space Cohort Program, I worked on an assignment to "Design a social travel product", and I hope it helps aspiring PMs prepare for product design questions. Here's the step-by-step structure to tackle such questions: 1. Ask clarifying questions 2. Summarize your understanding 3. List existing competitors with USPs and drawbacks 4. Segment your users 5. Prioritize one segment with reasoning 6. Define a user persona 7. Map the user journey 8. Identify pain areas at key touchpoints 9. Prioritize pain points 10. Propose solutions 11. Share the improved journey 12. Define success metrics 13. Lay out your timeline and milestones I've attached the full assignment. Hope it helps anyone looking to strengthen their product thinking! Would love to know: How do you approach product design questions? #ProductDesign #ProductInterviews #ProductManagement #DesignThinking

“Train-the-trainers” (TTT) is one of the most common methods used to scale up improvement & change capability across organisations, yet we often fail to set it up for success. A recent article, drawing on teacher professional development & transfer-of-training research, argues TTT should always be based on an “offer-and-use” model: OFFER: what the programme provides—facilitator expertise, session design, practice opportunities, feedback, follow-up support & evaluation. USE: what participants do with those opportunities—what they notice, how they make sense of it, how much they engage, what they learn, & whether they apply it in real work. How to design TTT that works & sticks: 1. Design for real-world use: Clarify the practical outcome - what trainers should do differently in their next sessions & what that should improve for the organisation. Plan beyond the classroom with post-course support so people can apply learning. Space learning over time rather than delivering it in one intensive block, because spacing & follow-ups support sustained use. 2. Use strong facilitators: Select facilitators who know the topic & how adults learn, how groups work & how to give useful feedback. Ensure they teach “how to make this stick at work” (apply & sustain practices), not only “how to deliver a session.” 3. Make practice central: Build the programme around realistic rehearsal: deliver, get feedback, & practise again until skills become automatic. Use participants’ real scenarios (especially change situations) to strengthen transfer. Include safe practice for difficult moments (challenge, unexpected questions) & treat mistakes as learning. Build peer learning so participants learn with & from each other, not just the facilitator. 4. Prepare participants to succeed: Assess what participants already know & can do, then tailor the learning. Build confidence to use skills at work (confidence predicts application). Help each person create a simple, specific plan for when & how they will use the approaches in their next training sessions. 5. Ensure workplace transfer support: Enable quick application (opportunities to deliver training soon after the course), plus time & resources to do it well. Provide ongoing support (feedback, coaching, & encouragement) from leaders, peers &/or the wider organisation. 6. Evaluate what matters: Go beyond satisfaction scores - assess whether trainers changed their practice & whether this improved outcomes for learners & the organisation. Use findings to improve the next iteration as a continuous improvement cycle, not a one-off event. https://lnkd.in/eJ-Xrxwm. By Prof. Dr. Susanne Wisshak & colleagues, sourced via John Whitfield MBA

A recent AI ethics sessions left me with an uncomfortable realization about how we're failing our own standards. The session started promisingly. Small groups. Flashpoint topics: AI and student data, mental health implications, cognitive offloading concerns. We placed sticky notes along spectrums between polarized positions, mapping where we stood relative to each other. The facilitator called it "powerful work." We nodded. We appreciated seeing our differences visualized. But here's what struck me as I watched those colorful dots cluster and separate: We've are becoming more skilled at mapping our disagreements and still remain remarkably ineffective at bridging them. Here's the pattern I'm seeing across our field: The skeptics raise legitimate concerns about equity and cognitive offloading. They have data. The early adopters see genuine potential for personalized support. They have transformations. The policy-makers navigate real constraints and liability concerns. The teachers live the daily reality where theory meets practice. Every perspective is essential. And we keep convening them, facilitating "rich conversations," then releasing everyone back to their echo chambers. What if we couldn't leave until we'd built something together? Not consensus. Not bland compromise. But concrete next steps: a policy draft, a pilot proposal, a research design that genuinely integrates competing perspectives. Imagine a session where: You're grouped with people holding opposing views You're assigned sources that challenge your position You can't leave until you've co-created something actionable that addresses the skeptic's concerns AND the innovator's insights AND the practitioner's reality Some might argue this is unrealistic. Too conflict-prone. But we're already spending the time. We're just spending it in circles. We've optimized for comfort over transformation. The real risk isn't that we'll have harder conversations. It's that we'll keep having easier ones while the stakes keep rising. We can't AI our way out of needing human deliberation. But we can stop pretending that mapping disagreement equals resolving it. I'm genuinely curious: Have you seen formats that successfully move groups from dialogue to collective action? What worked? #AIEthics #EducationalLeadership #CollectiveAction #AIinEducation #ProductiveDisagreement Amanda Bickerstaff Alfonso Mendoza Jr., Ed.D. Lidia Alfonsina M. Mike Kentz Phillip Alcock Nigel P. Daly, PhD 戴 禮 David H. Aman Kumar

Don’t end your session without this… 🛑✋ One of the most common criticisms of icebreaker activities - or any playful exercise, even if it’s framed as a “serious game” - is that they’re a waste of time. And honestly? That criticism is often valid. Not because the activity itself isn’t valuable… but because facilitators skip the most crucial part: 🧠 The debrief. Without reflection, the group misses the why. The experience stays surface-level. And all that potential for insight, connection, and growth? Gone. After the activity, the fun is fading, the adrenaline is dropping… and this is exactly when most facilitators move on. But the best ones? They pause and help the group make meaning. With just a few minutes of thoughtful debriefing, everything shifts. You give participants a chance to slow down, make meaning, and apply what they’ve just felt, learned, or experienced. Because it’s not the activity itself that creates transformation, it’s what we learn from it. I was recently reminded of a debrief activity called the "Traffic Light" after watching a video by Mark Collard, which I would love to share: Instructions 📋 1. Create three spaces (physically or metaphorically) based on the colours of a traffic light: red, yellow, and green. For in-person meetings, mark the spaces using coloured tape (maybe ⭕️🪄 Matthias has a fun #Facilitape Tip for us?) on the floor or place three papers labelled “Red,” “Yellow,” and “Green.” 2. Guide the whole group from one space to the next and ask: 🟢 Green – What should we continue doing that’s working well? 🟡 Yellow – What should we pay attention to or approach with caution? 🔴 Red – What should we stop doing that’s not helping? 3. With enough time, you could also have participants pair up for a conversation about each question, then invite them to share their thoughts in the larger group. But, here’s the key: For the best outcome, adjust the questions based on your activity and debriefing purpose. Here are a few more examples: After a new team experience: 🟢 What behaviours helped us work well together? 🔴 What slowed us down? 🟡 What worked… sometimes? Midway through a retreat or training: 🟢 What’s energizing you so far? 🔴 What’s feeling unclear or overwhelming? 🟡 What’s worth revisiting? After a tough discussion: 🟢 What helped you feel heard? 🔴 What felt off or uncomfortable? 🟡 What might be worth exploring more deeply? What I love about it is that it engages the whole group (especially when you incorporate movement from one space to the next), and it provides people with a safe structure to share honest feedback. Also, I often start with green, move to red, and end with yellow. This way, we always start with something positive and don’t finish on a negative note. 👉 What are your favourite debriefing activities and methods? #facilitationtips #icemeltersbook

9 questions for System Design interviews. Before you start solving the wrong problem. Most candidates fail system design interviews before they draw the first box. They hear “design X” and immediately jump to databases, queues, and caches. That’s how you end up with a polished solution... for the wrong problem. Before you design anything, your focus should be on killing ambiguity. Ask these 9 questions first 1. How many users/requests are we talking about? (Scale & load) 2. What’s the read/write ratio? (Traffic shape) 3. Strong consistency or eventual consistency? (Correctness model) 4. What’s the latency requirement? (Speed budget) 5. How much data are we storing? (Volume & growth) 6. What happens when things fail? (Failure model) 7. Single region or multi-region? (Topology) 8. What are the cost constraints? (Economic reality) 9. How fast will requirements change? (Rate of change) Great system design isn’t about drawing better diagrams. It’s about asking better questions and letting those answers do the design for you. If you’re preparing for interviews, practice this matrix daily. It works for feeds, payments, metrics, search, everything. Boxes come last.