Loading page
About this tool
Run a structured design critique with a timed agenda, artefact-specific prompts and a vague-feedback checker.
This planner turns a design review into a structured critique: pick a framework — objective-based, I like / I wish / What if, Rose-Thorn-Bud or Plus/Delta — and it splits your session length across the rounds, sets ground rules, and lists prompts matched to the artefact and the stage the work is at. A second panel scores a written comment for specificity, flagging filler words like 'clean', 'modern', 'busy' or 'make it pop' and telling you what to add. The underlying principle is the one from Discussing Design: a critique analyses work against its stated objectives, which is what separates it from a reaction.
Open Design Critique Checklist on AltFTool — it loads instantly in your browser.
Add your input to the workspace.
Adjust the options until the result looks right.
Copy or download the output and put it to work.
Session length is split across rounds and always adds up exactly, so the last round survives.
Concept, mid-fidelity and pre-launch each get a different prompt set.
Names the filler words in a comment and says what is missing from it.
A critique analyses the work against the objectives it was made to meet; feedback is often just a reaction. The practical test is whether an observation names an element, the effect it has and the goal it helps or undermines — if it stops at 'I would have done it differently', it is a preference, not a critique.
State the objective and the stage before anyone speaks, ask for the effect rather than the fix, and require a 'because' on every comment. 'Make it pop' becomes usable the moment you ask which element should draw attention first and what happens today instead.
Thirty to sixty minutes for a single artefact with four to six people. Beyond about twelve participants a critique turns into a presentation and the quiet reviewers stop contributing, so run two smaller sessions instead.
It is the Stanford d.school feedback format: state what is working, state what you wish were different, then offer speculative alternatives as questions. Splitting the three keeps praise from being swallowed by criticism and keeps suggestions from being heard as instructions.