Make Your Design Critique a Strategy Meeting

If you want to watch a product team waste time and money, sit in on their weekly design critique. It usually sounds something like this:

• "I don't love this shade of blue."
• "Can we make the logo bigger?"
• "This feels a bit heavy to me."
• "I think users will get confused here."

Notice the verbs. "I love." "I think." "I feel." It’s a room full of smart people debating opinions. It’s a beauty contest. The loudest voice wins. And the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) always wins.

Meanwhile, while they’re debating the hex code of the primary button, the product is failing. Not because the blue isn’t pretty. But because the interface isn't solving the struggle that brought the user there in the first place.

This is where JTBDUX changes the game. It argues that a design critique isn’t an art review, it’s a strategy meeting. Its purpose should be to answer one rigorous question: Does this interface allow the user to make the progress they came here for?

To answer that, you have to move beyond "Taste" and start critiquing against the Job.

Progress Velocity

In a JTBDUX critique, every screen is judged by whether or not it helps the user maintain momentum and make progress in the Job they hired the product to do. If a screen looks beautiful but confuses the user, it fails. If it looks "ugly" (dense) but gives the user the exact data they need to decide instantly, it wins.

Here are three lenses to use to help you critique for Progress rather than Pretty.

Look at the Context

Standard critiques look at the screen in isolation. "Is the layout balanced? Is there enough whitespace?" JTBDUX critiques look at the context; i.e., the intensity of the struggle.

Take a dashboard for an emergency response logistics tool. In a standard critique, you’d hear things like, “This is too cluttered. There’s too much data. We should hide the secondary metrics behind a tab to let the design breathe.”

A JTBDUX  critique looks at this through a different lens: “The user is in a high-stakes, high-velocity situation. They’re looking for anomalies. If we hide data, we force them to click and remember. That slows them down. In this context, density is progress.”

The critique forces the team to align the UI with the intensity of the user's struggle, not an abstract ideal of minimalism.

Look at the Level of Anxiety

Standard critiques look at the copy. "Is this tone friendly? Is it on-brand?"

JTBDUX critiques account for anxiety. Think about it: Fear is the ultimate progress blocker. If a user is afraid of the outcome—afraid of looking stupid, afraid of breaking something, afraid of losing work—they stop.

A “Send Campaign” button in an email marketing tool is a great example. In a standard critique, making the button copy punchier – “Blast it!” – might seem like a great idea.

But a JTBDUX critique: will see the truth. The user is terrified of sending a typo to 50,000 people. 'Blast It' sounds reckless. It increases their anxiety. To support progress, fear needs to be reduced with a label like 'Review & Send' and a clear preview state.

This ensures the interface services the Emotional Job (Safety) so the Functional Job (Sending) can happen without regret.

Examine the Default

Standard critiques look at flexibility. “Can the user customize this? Do they have enough choices?”

JTBDUX critiques look at the default path—the one most users will take, especially early on when motivation is fragile and hesitation is expensive. Because every extra choice you ask the user to make is a speed bump.

Picture the moment your flight gets cancelled. The job isn’t “browse flights.” The job is: “Get to my destination with the least damage to my day.” Fast.

In a typical critique, someone will try to be helpful: “Let’s show every option: all flights, all airlines, all cabin classes, all layovers, all price filters. Give them maximum control.” That looks like empowerment. In practice, it’s how you strand someone in analysis paralysis while the remaining seats disappear.

A JTBDUX critique asks one question: What should the default be for the most common desperate situation? Usually, it’s not “start from a blank search.” It’s something like:

• “Best option: arrives today, fewest stops” (preselected)
• “Next best: arrives tomorrow morning”
• “Cheapest: arrives tomorrow night”

Three options. Clear tradeoffs. One tap to confirm. Then—after they’ve secured a path to relief—you let them go deeper: change airports, browse alternates, choose seats, apply vouchers. Same power, different sequencing.

Defaults are where strategy shows up in the interface. You’re betting on what situation most users are in—and building the fastest path out of it.

The "I Like" Ban

The most practical change you can make today is to ban the phrase "I like" from your critiques. It doesn't matter what you like. You’re not the user. You’re not the one struggling to make progress in that specific moment.

Replace it with: "This blocks progress because..." or "This accelerates progress because..."

When you run a critique this way, you’re really asking what matters: "In this specific situation, with this specific motivation, does this interface help them take the next step, or does it get in the way?"

If it gets in the way—no matter how beautiful it is—it has to go.