CRIT

Live Prototyping and App Design

Date: April 2022 - June 2022
Role: UX Designer and UX Researcher
Teammates: Matthew Stepanek, Noelle Sumner, Kimberly Alonzo, Mohammad N Samadi

Project Overview

While creating CRIT, we focused on how artists would interact with one another in order to facilitate effective critique. Through user testing live with 20+ users we were able to get a better understanding of the user-to-user interactions and make improvements that would facilitate more constructive critique. Rather than focusing on aesthetics, we created a novel social media experience that would facilitate positive critique for artists looking to receive feedback and improve their works.

Problem Statement

Any skill-level artist needs a space in which they can provide and receive constructive, respectful critique. Receiving critique allows the artist to gain an outside, less biased perspective on how to improve their work in progress, additionally, the artist can apply feedback given to others to their own work and look at it in a new way.

Background

Critique is an important part of any artistic process, although not just any critique. When artists allow themselves to be vulnerable and post their work online, it is impossible to know what the reaction will be, although, it’s likely not constructive. Social media is not interested in “works in progress” but demands perfection. As a designer, I understand the benefits respectful, meaningful, and solicited critique can offer, especially to novices on their works in progress. Although, unless someone already knows a group of people with the same niche interest it can be difficult to find people from which to offer and receive critiques. Overall, critique is valuable for both the user giving and receiving critique and should be a regular part of any artistic process.

Prototype Session 1

Our first prototype session was conducted via Google Jamboard. This platform was chosen due to its flexibility and drawing tools. During the session, 20+ users were able to interact with the prototype synchronously. The users were divided into 2 groups, the first group was responsible for creating art with Jamboard's native tools or to upload their own work. The second group was responsible for providing feedback. Sample posts and critique were provided to guide the users.

Imagine you're an artist. You've been working on a project for a while, you want some feedback, but none of your friends are artists. Here's where CRIT comes in.

We're an online platform that lets creatives share and get critique on their unfinished works. You choose what to share, who gets to see it, and how they critique.

Today we'll be splitting you up into two groups and going through the motions of posting artwork and giving feedback using CRIT.

Prototype Session 1 Instructions

Group 1

Create a drawing with the provided template

Group 2

Interact with the premade posts

Interact

MC or comment on other participants’ drawing

Reflect

Provide feedback in real-time or filling out survey

The photo is one of the posts uploaded by one of the users. He followed the directions and included a caption describing what the piece is for (his graduation cap) and what areas he's seeking advice on.

Prototype 1: Feedback

Reacts
+
Likes

A quick way to react with another post. Highlighting hid the number of reactions and text.

Threads
‍

Threads can make the page look less cluttered.

No Drawing
‍

We only used drawing for the prototype, and participants didn’t have drawing skills.

Prototype Session 2

Based off feedback from our first prototyping session, we created a new prototype in Figma to provide a more realistic experience. We even updated multiple choice percentages live, like in the post below, to reflect how percentages would change in in real time. Prior to exploring our prototype, we presented a critique guide to the users to help guide them in making effective critique. While it was not a screen on the app, something similar would have been an addition to a following prototype. Based on our observations of the prototype session events and user feedback afterwards, it was clear that the changes made improved the user experience and yielded better critique.

Changes + Feedback Implementation

"This or That" was added as a mode of feedback in addition to freeform commenting and multiple choice.

The prototype platform was changed from Jamboard to Figma. This offered a more realistic interaction experience

Since Figma does not offer drawing tools, example posts and uploads from users were higher fidelity

Figma's comment function allowed us to create threads as suggested

We used Figma's ability to react to comments as a way to simulate "voting" for a multiple choice option

There were no groups since we did not know which users would have art to upload

This is an example of a pre-made multiple choice post.

Prototype Session 2 Instructions

Explore

Users can explore CRIT by interacting with sample posts and prompts

Upload

There's an option for the user to upload their own work and prompts

Critique

Critique by reacting and replying to others’ posted feedback

Feedback

Provide feedback in real-time or filling out survey

Differences in Critique Between Sessions

More Specific

Overall, user gave more specific critique that was positive and constructive

Critique Guide

The critique guide made users more confident in their critiquing abilities

This or That

This method resulted in more focused and specific comments than MC or freeform

Higher Fidelity

More users uploaded their professional work during the prototype session

This is an example of a "This or That" post created by one of our users including a comment made by another user.

Limitations

We designed CRIT to be inclusive towards artists of all levels. Although much of our user testing was performed by beginner level artists, usability and overall satisfaction of our platform still persisted. If future user testing were to resume, we would love to survey a wider group of artists with ranging experience levels to implement their feedback.

Future Work

Expand Features
‍

Add other features like filters, search, and privacy settings
‍
‍

Low-Fi Prototype
‍

Build out clickable low fidelity then high fidelity site on Figma

‍

Brand Identity
‍

Make a logo and test which palettes users respond to
‍
‍

This is an example of a "Freeform" post created by one of our users after uploading a photograph she'd taken. One user was inspired by the post and asks how she set it up.

Reflection

This project is different from others in its main focus on creating the best user-to-user interactions versus looking at aesthetics or flow of the app. In addition, it was important for us to create a novel experience that isn't currently offered. Both of these items required us to be creative and intentional when coming up with new ways to present and ask for critique. The "Multiple Choice", "This or That", and "Freeform" types of feedback come with different benefits and the variety helps user's remain attentive and not get bored of the same thing. The "This or That" form helps people get guidance on binary decisions in only 1 facet of the design. The "Multiple Choice" form allow the user to ask for feedback about multiple facets. Both of these types allow users to get quicker feedback from many people, with the option of allowing user's to provide more detailed feedback through comments. Freeform comments allow people to leave more specialized detailed feedback, but it is likely they will get less interaction compared to "This or That" and "Multiple Choice".

It was a great experience working on a project that has quite a different goal than the standard UX Design project. This project has followed me into other projects when I continue to take into account both user-to-interface and user-to-user interactions.