This morning I saw @Dixie3Flatline's tweet about how you can dislike a tool without writing a mean blog post.

I remembered a conversation with @KentBeck about critique: art students explicitly learn to critique the work of others. Engineers...don't, and it shows.

What do?

/1
I trained in arts schools for years before becoming an engineer, and it has definitely impacted the way that I handle both giving and receiving critique.

So what constitutes a sophisticated, useful critique?

/2
BEFORE I BEGIN, two things.

1. I'm about to discuss critiquing a PIECE (like code, software, a product, or a book).

This is not about feedback for a PERSON. You can read about that below. Or, if you're light on time, check out the 20 minute talk.

/3 https://chelseatroy.com/tag/feedback/?order=asc
Okay so

2. I have written about code review specifically. Code review is a specific type of feedback with specific strictures, and so I wrote about that SEPARATELY. Check out that post before applying this thread to your code reviews.

/5 https://chelseatroy.com/2019/12/18/reviewing-pull-requests/
OKAY WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED

We have a tendency, when we use an app or read a book or otherwise consume an information product, to make a snap judgment about whether we "like" it.

In and of itself, this isn't that bad. But there are a couple things to keep in mind.

/6
FIRST THING TO KEEP IN MIND: Is this piece for me?

The NUMBER ONE cognitive wtf I see from engineers, frankly, is the unquestioned assumption that everything that exists in the world is for them personally.

Friends, it is not.

/7
This is why engineers sometimes provide what they think is a helpful critique and get ignored or rebuffed by creators.

Sometimes it's because "the creator can't take feedback" or whatever. More often, it's because the "feedback" was "this should have been a different thing."

/8
Example: I wrote a piece for tech folk from marginalized groups about how it's not "imposter syndrome" if we're being TOLD we don't know what we're talking about

Some wyt dude showed up to tell me I misunderstood imposter syndrome—accidentally proving the point of the piece.

/9
It can be SUPER illuminating to put some real thought into who an app/book/etc is for.

Is it for working moms who don't have time to use whatever YOUR favorite thing is? Is it for engineering beginners? Experts? Who is the person who would like this thing the MOST?

/10
Whether that person is you or not, thinking about who that person might be can help you make a more useful, grounded, nuanced critique.

Experienced creators do not care what people that their thing ISN'T for have to say about it.

/11
SECOND THING TO KEEP IN MIND: Under what conditions did the creator decide to make this?

This can also be super illuminating. What gap were they trying to fill? What problem were they hoping to solve? What personal experience led them to make this?

/12
That can help you understand their perspective—which you NEED, to make a nuanced critique.

This is why artists present their work for critique with an explanation. (Tangent: remember this next time you moan about chefs putting a story at the beginning of their recipe).

/13
Mechanical engineers get to lean on the natural laws of physics.

Computers are person-made, so in computer science, our "physics" are the perspectives of the creators of the things we consume.

So it is with any person-made thing.

With this info... /14
...you can better understand and talk about whether the creator accomplished their goals, based on their perspective, for their audience.

/15
There are two more things to address here, but I have to run to lunch. So I will come back and finish this thread this afternoon!

16/ will delete this temporary placeholder tweet later and continue thread
You can follow @HeyChelseaTroy.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: