BoardSnap is an iOS app that reads whiteboard photos and produces clean summaries and action items in about ten seconds. This design critique template structures a critique session — design goals, structured feedback by category, and prioritized action items — on a whiteboard that BoardSnap converts into a clean post-critique brief.
Use this for any structured design critique: product design, visual design, UX flows, marketing design, or architecture diagrams. It works for formal critique sessions and informal peer reviews.
Budget 30–45 minutes per design being reviewed. For multiple designs in one session, time-box each critique and snap the board between designs so each critique has its own BoardSnap record.
The designer writes the goals at the top before the critique begins. What problem does this design solve? Who is the user? What is the user's goal? What constraints shaped this design? The critique should evaluate the design against these stated goals — not against an imagined alternative.
The critique begins here. Write what the design does well — specifically. 'The hierarchy is clear' is specific enough. 'It's clean' is not. Starting with what works focuses the room on the design's actual strengths and creates the conditions for honest feedback on gaps.
Write the reviewers' questions about the design — things that need clarification. 'Why did you choose a modal here instead of a sheet?' is a question. Questions don't assume the designer made an error — they create space for the designer to explain a decision, which often resolves the apparent issue.
Write the areas where the design doesn't fully achieve the stated goals. Frame as opportunities, not failures: 'The loading state isn't reflected in the design yet' not 'You forgot the loading state.' Opportunities are specific, connected to the stated goals, and actionable.
From the opportunities: which changes should happen before the design moves forward? Write them as prioritized action items with the designer as the owner. The critique ends with a clear to-do list, not an open-ended discussion of everything that could be different.
Before reviewers say anything: the designer reads the goals out loud. Reviewers listen. The critique is structured around these goals — anything said during the critique should connect to them.
Give reviewers two to three minutes to review the design silently and write their own notes. Then open the discussion. Silent review prevents groupthink — the first person who speaks doesn't set the direction for everyone's feedback.
Go around the room: each reviewer names one thing that's working well. Write them on the board. This takes three minutes and sets a constructive tone that makes the opportunities section more honest.
Invite questions — not critiques. Write them on the board. The designer answers. Many apparent design problems resolve when the designer explains the reasoning. Don't let reviewers skip to solutions before asking the questions.
Write each opportunity as a connection to an unmet goal: 'The design doesn't yet address the case where the user has zero boards — the goal says it needs to work for empty states.' Connect every opportunity to a stated goal.
Before the critique ends: which opportunities should be addressed in the next iteration? Which can wait? Write the prioritized list on the board. The designer leaves with a clear next step, not a list of everything the room said.
BoardSnap reads the goals, what's working, questions, opportunities, and action items. The output is a structured critique brief — action items are dated tasks, and the summary captures the full feedback without the designer having to take notes during the session.
Design critiques without structure become competitive monologue. A whiteboard critique with a defined structure — goals written before the critique starts, feedback organized by category — keeps the conversation focused on the design and the designer's stated goals.
BoardSnap captures the full critique before the room disperses. The designer doesn't need to take notes — they can focus on listening. The action items land in BoardSnap before the design file is reopened.
A design critique is an exploratory, iterative feedback session — it happens during the design process and produces direction for the next iteration. A design review is a formal gate — it happens at the end of a design phase and produces a decision: ship, revise, or reject. Use critique during the process; use review to make the shipping decision.
Respond to questions — yes. Defend decisions — no. The designer's job in a critique is to listen, ask clarifying questions when feedback is vague, and take notes. Defending decisions during a critique produces an argument, not insight. If feedback is based on a misunderstanding, clarify it after the critique in a follow-up.
Three to five for most critiques. Fewer than three and you don't get diverse perspectives. More than five and managing everyone's input takes longer than the critique itself. For complex designs, run two separate critique sessions with different reviewer groups rather than one large session.
The free tier includes one project and 30 boards. Pro is $9.99/month or $69.99/year for unlimited boards and AI chat on every board.
No exporting, no transcription. Snap the board, get the action plan.