Near the end of a design project, the most valuable input you receive is rarely "I like it" or "I don't like it." It is structured feedback: comments tied to specific dimensions of design quality such as usability, learnability, consistency, visual hierarchy, accessibility, and fit with the users' actual tasks. This topic looks at how to frame a critique so that it produces that kind of comment, how to deliver criticism that a teammate can act on, and how to receive criticism without becoming defensive or rewriting your design in response to every stray opinion.
Structured feedback also serves a second purpose in this course. When several reviewers independently flag the same screen, the same control, or the same confusing label, you are no longer looking at one person's taste; you are looking at a pattern. Those patterns are what you carry into your final reflection and your list of proposed improvements, and they are the evidence you will cite when you defend your design decisions to an audience.
The three videos below come from the Nielsen Norman Group, a long-established usability consultancy. As you watch, pay attention to the mechanics: how a critique session is set up before anyone speaks, what makes a comment specific enough to act on, and how a quality dimension like accessibility can be defined precisely enough to be reviewed rather than vaguely praised. Then apply the same mechanics to your own project review.
A short, practical set of three tips for giving feedback during a UX design critique, aimed especially at designers who feel uncertain about speaking up. The video addresses the confidence problem behind weak or overly polite feedback and suggests ways to phrase observations so they are useful to the person receiving them.
It targets the "providing constructive critique" subtopic directly, and because it is written for newer designers it matches the position most students are in when reviewing a classmate's final project.
This video focuses on the receiving side of the exchange: how to set up a presentation of UX work so that stakeholders give you feedback you can actually use. It covers providing context before showing the work and framing what kind of input you are asking for, rather than opening the floor to unstructured reactions.
It fills in the half of the topic that students usually neglect, and it ties closely to presenting your final project and design rationale to an audience that may not share your HCI background.
An explanation of the difference between accessible design and inclusive design, two terms that are frequently used as synonyms but have different focuses and scopes. The video clarifies what each term covers so that the distinction can be applied when reviewing a product.
Accessibility and inclusion are core dimensions of design quality in this course, and having precise definitions lets you critique a project against a real standard instead of offering a general impression.
Together these videos support the module outcomes by giving you a working method for the evaluation and reflection phase. The accessibility and inclusive design distinction sharpens the criteria you use to judge the finished interface against usability and accessibility standards (MO1) and to reflect on the accessibility and cultural considerations you did or did not address during the project (MO3). The guidance on setting up a presentation to get useful feedback maps onto defending your design rationale to an audience with evidence rather than opinion (MO2), while the critique tips help you both contribute to and absorb peer review. Finally, the habit of collecting specific, structured comments is what lets you spot recurring problems and turn them into a concrete, prioritized list of future improvements (MO4).
These videos were chosen from YouTube on October 3, 2026. Each has captions; the player turns them on. Videos on YouTube can be changed or removed — if one no longer plays, tell your instructor. If a player does not appear, use its Watch on YouTube link.