Design
Quick Prototype Review
The presenter shows a prototype without explaining it, everyone writes feedback in silence, then each person reads it out while the presenter listens. Comments stay specific: 'Here's what confused me' instead of 'I dislike the color.' You leave with the three changes to make next.
Duration
30 mins
Group Size
4-6
Category
Design
Difficulty
Easy
- Present prototypes clearly, avoiding over-explanation or defensiveness.
- Gather specific feedback to improve the design.
- Differentiate preferences from usability issues.
- Identify the top three changes for the next iteration.
- Foster team alignment around the prototype's goals.
- Actionable feedback for prototype improvement.
- Clear distinction between critical issues and minor improvements.
- Prioritized change list for the next iteration.
Presenters often want to defend every criticism. Shut this down. The goal is to gather feedback, not win arguments. Defensiveness blocks learning.
'I don't like it' is useless. 'I didn't understand which button to click' is useful. Push for specific, behavioral feedback. Ask: 'What were you trying to do when you got confused? What did you expect to see?' Feelings are valid, but actionable observations are better.
People tend to be too nice, avoiding conflict. Explicitly ask: 'What's one thing that confused you, even briefly?' Give permission to be critical. Frame it as helping the project, not attacking the designer.
If showing rough wireframes, expect comments on visual design. Head this off: 'The visual design isn't done, so focus on the flow.' Repeat as needed. Low-fidelity prototypes invite the wrong feedback without clear expectations.
The 10-minute sharing round can drag if people start debating. Keep it moving: 'Great point, stick it up there. Next person.' Discussion comes later. Debate during sharing wastes time and silences quieter voices.
Someone new to the project spots things the team misses. Their confusion is valuable, even if due to lack of context. Include at least one outsider.
To run it remotely, share the prototype on screen and give each person a column on a shared board for the silent round. Call on people by name for the read-out so they don't talk over each other, and keep the presenter on mute until step 5, apart from their one clarifying question.
'I don't like it' is useless. 'I didn't understand which button to click' is useful. Push for specific, behavioral feedback. Ask: 'What were you trying to do when you got confused? What did you expect to see?' Feelings are valid, but actionable observations are better.
People tend to be too nice, avoiding conflict. Explicitly ask: 'What's one thing that confused you, even briefly?' Give permission to be critical. Frame it as helping the project, not attacking the designer.
If showing rough wireframes, expect comments on visual design. Head this off: 'The visual design isn't done, so focus on the flow.' Repeat as needed. Low-fidelity prototypes invite the wrong feedback without clear expectations.
The 10-minute sharing round can drag if people start debating. Keep it moving: 'Great point, stick it up there. Next person.' Discussion comes later. Debate during sharing wastes time and silences quieter voices.
Someone new to the project spots things the team misses. Their confusion is valuable, even if due to lack of context. Include at least one outsider.
To run it remotely, share the prototype on screen and give each person a column on a shared board for the silent round. Call on people by name for the read-out so they don't talk over each other, and keep the presenter on mute until step 5, apart from their one clarifying question.
Add unlimited notes to any activity
Start the conversation
Be the first to share your thoughts, experiences, or questions!