Design Community Engagement

🤦🏻 “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

Every proposal I've reviewed promises "community participation in monitoring." Almost none deliver it. The language is everywhere. "Beneficiaries will be actively involved in the M&E process." "Community feedback will inform program adaptation." "Participatory approaches will ensure accountability to affected populations." Then implementation starts. And here's what actually happens: The M&E team designs the tools. The M&E team defines the indicators. The M&E team collects the data. Communities answer the questions they're given. The results go to the donor. At no point did a community member influence what was measured, how it was interpreted, or what changed because of it. After 20 years in this field, I've come to an uncomfortable conclusion: most participatory M&E in development is participation in name only. Here are 5 signs your participatory M&E is actually extractive: 1️⃣ Communities provide data but never see the results. If the findings travel upward to the donor but never travel back to the people who provided them, that's extraction. 2️⃣ The indicators were set before any community consultation. If communities are asked to provide data against definitions they had no role in shaping, they're data sources, not participants. 3️⃣ No program decision has changed because of community input. Participation without influence is theater. If community feedback sits in an annex and never reaches a decision-maker, the process serves the report, not the people. 4️⃣ The same questions are asked quarter after quarter with no visible response. Communities are perceptive. When they see that nothing changes despite their input, participation fatigue sets in. Attendance drops. Trust erodes. 5️⃣ There's no budget line for feedback to communities. Translation, accessible summaries, community meetings to share findings, if these aren't budgeted, participation was never the real intention. Here's what programs that do it well look like: ✅ They share findings with communities within 30 days. ✅ They track which decisions changed because of community feedback. ✅ They let communities define what "success" means in their context. ✅ And they treat downward accountability as seriously as upward reporting. Participatory M&E was designed to shift power. In most programs, it hasn't shifted anything except the workload onto communities who give their time and get nothing back. Most M&E systems are accountable upward to donors. Very few are accountable downward to communities. Something needs to be changed. Does community feedback actually influence decisions in your program? #MonitoringAndEvaluation #MEL #ParticipatoryME #Accountability #InternationalDevelopment #CommunityEngagement #AdaptiveManagement

As you start working with more and more stakeholders, there is a natural tendency to try accomodate every bit of feedback received. This is something we refer to as "Design by committee". It's also a surefire way to build subpar experiences by combining multiple irrelevant ideas into a single solution, rather than thinking deeply about the problem being solved and what the right solution is. Here is what the situation usually looks like: - Stakeholder A: "This competitor app is doing it that way." - Stakeholder B: "I showed this to my partner, and they didn't like it." - Stakeholder C: "Let's rethink this as it won't be clear to users." Some of the feedback above is valid, whereas other pieces are purely opinion-based, with no particular evidence or logical argument. It's your role as a designer to cut through the noise, eliminate pure opinion, debate where needed, and ultimately arrive at a solution that addresses the original problem, both for the business and the user. I have a simple decision tree I've used throughout my career as a thought process when dealing with feedback from multiple stakeholders. It boils down to four questions: 🟢 Is it clear and specific? ↳ If not, clarify it. 🟢 Is it supported by evidence or logic? ↳ If not, debate it. 🟢 Will it help us meet the objective? ↳ If not, kindly disregard. 🟢 Is it feasible? ↳ If not, save it as a fast-follow or future idea. If all the checks above are met, it's worth actioning the feedback. It still doesn't mean you have to act on every single suggestion, but it does mean you can quickly narrow down to a much smaller pool of items to consider. -- If you found this useful, consider reposting ♻️ What else have you found helpful in dealing with feedback from multiple stakeholders? Let me know in the comments 👇

How often do we design with people, instead of for them? It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that creativity is something only designers hold the key to. But when we pause and engage with communities, we realize something powerful: Creativity thrives within the community itself—it just needs the right conditions to flourish. Take, for example, the Collective Action Toolkit (CAT) by Frog. It’s not just a tool; it’s a framework that empowers communities to solve problems by tapping into their collective strength. Through a series of activities—like clarifying goals and imagining new ideas—small groups around the world have used this toolkit to not only share their thoughts but to take decisive action that addresses their concerns. The beauty of this approach is in its adaptability. It’s not a one-size-fits-all model. Each group can mould it to fit their unique needs, ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard and valued. But collaboration, as we know, isn’t always easy. There’s often discomfort, sometimes even conflict, when differing ideas meet. Yet, as designers, navigating these challenges is where true progress happens. As Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge, leaders in organizational development, have shown, it's in this space of tension that new solutions are born. A recent contribution from @Design Impact offers a set of guiding principles for designers to keep in mind when working with communities. One of these, “Value me for who I am, not who I’m told to be,” resonates deeply. It’s a reminder that behind every design is a real person, with history, emotions, and passions. When we acknowledge that, we move beyond simply gathering feedback—we tap into real leadership within the community. At the end of the day, Social innovation isn’t just about creating a product or service. It’s about co-creating, about building alongside communities rather than handing down solutions. It’s about fostering a space where everyone’s creativity can shine, and where long-term, sustainable change is possible. Have you been part of a design process that values community leadership? What challenges—and opportunities—did you encounter along the way?

💡SQUACK Design Critique Framework It's nearly impossible to design a solid product in a vacuum—you always need feedback from others. Yet, giving and receiving feedback are often the most challenging parts of the design process. Without a clear framework, design review sessions can easily devolve into unproductive noise or, worse, feel like a lynching. SQUACK, proposed by UX coach Julie Jensen (https://lnkd.in/dCA8CTHc), is a structured framework that helps provide constructive and organized design feedback. Each letter represents a specific type of comment: 🟠 S (Suggestion) Personal ideas or preferences that may not be backed by data but offer alternative approaches. 🟠 Q (Question) Points of confusion or requests for clarification (e.g., "Why did you decide to use this component in the first place?"). 🟠 U (User Signal) Feedback grounded in data, user research, or real user behavior. It's objective feedback, not subjective opinions. 🟠 A (Accident) Minor mistakes like typos, alignment issues, or numerical errors can cause friction or misunderstanding. 🟠 C (Critical) Major concerns that present risks (business, usability, technical). These require further attention or redesign. 🟠 K (Kudos) Praise for successful elements or well-executed design choices. This is important for morale and motivation. ✅ Benefits of using SQUACK Design critique session participants can use initials (e.g., S, Q, C) to label their comments and even combine types (e.g., "Q+S") when providing feedback. This helps improve clarity & context and leads to better outcomes: ✔ Helps categorize feedback into distinct categories and separate subjective opinions from facts. ✔ Makes critique sessions more inclusive, especially for quieter participants. ✔ Encourages actionable and balanced feedback (not just what's wrong with design but also what's good about it). 🖼️ SQUACK example by Ya-Ching #UX #uxdesign #productdesign #design

If people can’t see themselves in the outcome, they won’t show up for the process. Communities stop turning up when the outcomes never reflect them. Engagement isn’t about how many people attend, it’s about whether their voices have been heard and the subsequent actions taken thereon. When outcomes feel corporate, generic, or pre-decided, people walk away. But when they recognise their words, their ideas, and their priorities in the final product, something changes. Trust deepens. Ownership grows. People engage more - not because they were asked to, but because it now belongs to them. That’s the difference between consultation and co-design.

Participatory Evaluation and Research Participatory research and evaluation (PR&E) shifts the traditional power dynamic of inquiry by treating "subjects" as co-researchers. Rather than conducting research on a community, it is conducted with them to ensure the findings lead to direct social action or organizational improvement. ## Core Principles of Participatory Approaches The foundation of this methodology is the belief that those experiencing a reality are the best equipped to analyze it. * Shared Ownership: Stakeholders are involved in every stage, from designing the evaluation questions to data collection and analysis. * Capacity Building: The process is designed to leave participants with new skills, such as interviewing techniques or data literacy. * Action-Orientation: The primary goal is not just "knowledge for knowledge's sake," but using evidence to solve local problems or influence policy. * Democratization of Knowledge: It validates "lay knowledge" or lived experience as being just as significant as academic or "expert" data. ## Common Methodologies PR&E often utilizes qualitative or mixed-methods approaches that facilitate group dialogue and collective reflection. (See attached) ## The Participatory Evaluation Matrix When designing a participatory framework, the following matrix helps define the level of engagement: * Design Phase: Do stakeholders help define what "success" looks like? * Data Phase: Are community members trained as enumerators or peer interviewers? * Analysis Phase: Do participants help interpret the results to ensure they aren't being misrepresented by external evaluators? * Dissemination Phase: Are findings shared in accessible formats (town halls, radio, infographics) rather than just technical reports? ## Key Challenges to Consider While empowering, these methods require significant time and ethical rigor: * Power Imbalances: Dominant voices within a group may silence marginalized members during participatory sessions. * Time Intensity: Building trust and consensus takes much longer than standard survey-based evaluations. * Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: Critics often question the "bias" of participatory data, though proponents argue that all research has inherent bias and PR&E is simply more transparent about it.

Hundreds of interviews. That was the long but necessary road to understanding what one Santa Clara County leadership team initially got wrong. I asked them: "What's the biggest barrier to housing stability here?" Their answer focused on logistics: getting people to jobs, to appointments, to the services they needed. Makes sense, right? But they were wrong. Their community told us something completely different. We spoke to mothers, fathers, youth, elected officials, county supervisors. People who speak English. Spanish. Vietnamese. Filipino. The collective answer: income instability. That's why when you bring us in to support you in designing solutions, we talk to everyone. Those who have a say in actually affecting this outcome and those who are actually experiencing this outcome. That's why hundreds of interviews were necessary. Not just a generic survey that people may or may not fill out. One-on-one interviews. Focus groups. Video calls. What we're looking for are stories, not just statistics. We're looking for what's working, what's not working, and, ultimately, what's missing. This process takes three months. I can probably guess what you’re thinking: "We don't have three months." But here's what I've learned. Three months is how you get real answers to questions we've been trying to solve for decades. Or you can spend years implementing the wrong solution. You can't design the right strategy until you understand the actual problem. Not the problem you think exists. The problem the community is telling you exists. Here's what happened when we interviewed hundreds: We didn't just gather information. We built the movement that will execute the strategy. Most strategic plans are written by 5 people in a conference room. Then leadership spends years trying to convince people to support it. We flip that. We build buy-in before we write a word. So when the plan drops, hundreds of stakeholders are ready to fight for it. How many people are ready to fight for your current strategic plan?

I don’t like it - we’ve all faced this dreaded feedback post-release.😅 What exactly don’t they like? 🤔 Is it the design? The workflow? Or something completely unexpected? This is where curiosity becomes our superpower. 💪 When we get feedback like this, we dig deeper by asking ‘Why?’—not just once, but over and over. Here’s how a recent conversation went: Customer: ‘I don’t like this new dashboard.’ PM (me): ‘What about it isn’t working for you?’ Customer: ‘It’s cluttered.’ PM: ‘When you say cluttered, do you mean visually or functionally?’ Customer: ‘It’s hard to find my key metrics.’ PM: ‘Which metrics are most important to you?’ Customer: ‘The monthly revenue report’ Aha! 💡 The real issue wasn’t the entire dashboard—it was about surfacing key metrics more effectively. The fix? Moving the revenue report front and center. But here’s the thing—we could have avoided this after-the-fact feedback with early testing and customer input. At Intuit, this is part of our product DNA and we approach it through Customer-Driven Innovation and Design for Delight (D4D)  (Learn more: https://lnkd.in/g5nijjkK) Getting vague feedback like 'I don’t like it' becomes less likely when: ☑️ We involve customers not only in discovery but also in design stage. ☑️ We run quick experiments and gather feedback in real-time. ☑️ We refine solutions through rapid iteration. The key? Make customers part of the journey from the start. 'I don’t like it' then becomes less of a surprise—and more of an insight we’ve already acted on. Now over to you: What’s the most ambiguous feedback you’ve received, and how did you turn it into a win? #ProductManagement #DesignThinking #GrowthMindset #Experimentation #BuildMeasureLearn

What users say isn't always what they think. This gap can mess up your design decisions. Here's why it happens: → Social desirability bias. → Fear of judgment. → Cognitive dissonance. → Lack of self-awareness. → Simple politeness. These factors lead to misinterpretation of user needs. Designers might miss critical usability issues. Products could fail to meet user expectations. Accurate feedback becomes hard to get. Biased data affects design choices. To overcome this, try these strategies: 1. Create a comfortable environment: Make users feel at ease. Comfort encourages honesty. 2. Encourage thinking aloud: Ask users to verbalize thoughts. This reveals their true feelings. 3. Use indirect questions: Avoid direct queries. Indirect questions uncover hidden truths. 4. Observe non-verbal cues: Watch body language. It often tells more than words. 5. Triangulate data: Use multiple data sources. This ensures a complete picture. 6. Foster honest feedback: Build trust with users. Trust leads to genuine responses. 7. Analyze discrepancies: Compare what users say and do. Identify and understand the gaps. 8. Iterate based on findings: Refine your design. Continuous improvement is key. 9. Stay aware of biases: Recognize potential biases. Work to minimize their impact. 10. Keep testing: Regular testing ensures alignment. Stay connected with user needs. By following these steps, designers can bridge the gap between user thoughts and statements. This leads to better products and happier users.