One often hears the claim that criticism is easy and cheap. Steve Jobs once attacked a critic by saying "What have you done that’s so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others [sic] work and belittle their motivations?" Yet Jobs was no stranger to dishing out his own criticism. The New Yorker revealed that "Jobs’s taste for merciless criticism was notorious."

Similarly, the creator of Speak Up and Brand New, Armin Vit, had this bit of anti-intellectualism to share:

I have very little patience for criticism these days. Either do the work or shut up. Critique with action, not words. Words are so twentieth century. There may be a few people that still enjoy reading that kind of stuff, but I think for the most part design criticism (at least in graphic design) is dead, and that’s not saying much as it never really lived much.

This view espoused by Jobs, Vit and those like them can be understood by what I call the 'armchair fallacy.' Those engaging in the armchair fallacy make a false distinction between theory and practice as forms of argumentation. For them, the only valid way to critique something is to create something different and better, and it must be a fully baked rebuttal in the form of a competing product (redesigns, of course, are not permitted. Those who invoke the armchair fallacy posit that actions speak louder than words. Yet this is an incredibly limited understanding of criticism.

Public criticism is just as much action as the creation of products is. The creation of products may speak loudly. But words that prompt widespread action literally speak louder. In any case, for a product to truly resonate, it must be written or spoken about, recorded or transmitted in some fashion.

When we combine the camp of detractors who would have critics make instead of write with the camp of those like Mike Monteiro who argue that redesigns are forbidden, there is no room for criticism at all. Which is, it would seem, the goal here for both groups.

Engaging in criticism is hardly a matter to take lightly—it comes with major risks and takes significant time and effort to produce. But criticism is essential because it forms the bedrock that sustains quality and craft in practitioners. Any community that embraces rigorously examined judgment and critical thought is a flourishing and self-aware one. Further, it is profoundly anti-intellectual to proclaim that theory and studied efforts at understanding what makes good design are unimportant. This is tantamount to admitting that one goes about releasing user-facing products without a second thought about their impact.

Given its importance, I am proposing a preliminary framework for how we as a community might both engage in and engage with criticism. I am open to suggestions for additions.

Sources of Criticism

Anyone can provide criticism. Individual feedback by a layperson speaks to the variety of people who may engage with a design.

Each time a user expresses 'I don't like this' that is a data point. 'I don't like this' is the first step towards getting something more actionable from a user, eg. 'I don't like this because.' It is up to the creator to ask 'why?'

It follows that mass feedback, taken in aggregate, is a weighty form of criticism to be taken seriously.

Still, it helps to have some domain knowledge. While everyone is capable of criticism, an excellent critic brings something more to the table, whether through historical, philosophical or technical analysis. These elements serve to enhance and contextualize criticism.

For unsurprising, though unfortunate reasons, criticism by peers, colleagues and journalists is rarely aired publicly, and when it is offered, it is done so reluctantly. Given this, the absence of criticism is not in the least-bit evidence of a well-designed product.

The more context one has as to the nature of the process that led to a product, the better one can determine a point of failure. Do not appeal to context in order to stifle criticism.

However, to engage in criticism one need not have worked at a company and know the internal operations that resulted in a particular design. In fact, if criticism were only permitted by those with access to protected internal information, it would very rarely occur.

Alberto Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle states that "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that necessary to produce it." Criticism is nonetheless a worthy goal.

Quality of Critique