Singapore UX portfolio critique: show the research choice behind the screens

The problem

Your case study shows attractive outputs but does not explain recruitment, limitations or decision impact.

Name the research choice you want examined

Choose one review question before polishing the whole portfolio: whether recruitment fits the question, whether an interpretation follows from observations, or whether the case explains how evidence informed a decision. These are different from asking whether the screens look attractive. Write your current claim and the part you cannot yet justify. A designer seeking visual hierarchy feedback and a researcher seeking methods critique can both benefit from an event, but need different working time. Keep the original case available rather than replacing it with the stronger story you hope the reviewer will accept. Your selection question is which advertised activity can examine the actual uncertainty, with the material you are allowed to show.

Prepare an evidence-to-decision case note

Use seven fields: research question; intended participants; actual recruitment and task; observations available; interpretation; design or research decision; and limitation. Add the case version and the origin of any item you show. DesignSingapore’s customer-research explanation discusses observation, interviews, defining what to learn and testing prototype solutions. That provides local method context, not an official portfolio template or proof of your findings. The note should let another reader trace the particular decision without assuming a diagram is the evidence itself. Use the small-sample guide when your conclusion reaches beyond the participants studied, and the journey-map guide when an observed action and inferred motivation look equally certain. For each claim, check whether it stays within the studied participants and whether the proposed motivation was observed or inferred.

• DesignSingapore: understanding customers through design ↗ · Source checked 20 October 2026

• Keep the sample claim within its evidence →
• Separate an observed action from inferred motivation →

Make your own contribution and the decision status explicit

Separate work you performed from a team’s supplied research, a facilitator’s demonstration and a later implementation by someone else. Record the decision as proposed, agreed, implemented or measured only when that status is actually established. Choose the status supported by the actual project record; mark a missing implementation or measurement as still unestablished. In a fictional case, a researcher analyses permitted interview notes and proposes explaining an unfamiliar booking term. The team discusses the proposal but has not changed the interface or measured its effect. The case can show the researcher’s analysis and proposal; it cannot claim that the revised design reduced failed bookings. State the missing implementation or measurement step instead of adding a result to make the portfolio feel complete.

Compare actual review formats against that note

For each Singapore candidate, record review focus, material accepted, reviewer role, discussion time or process, preparation and unresolved condition. A public talk can explain research without inspecting participant portfolios. A workshop may teach a method through a shared exercise rather than review outside projects. A portfolio session may focus on visual presentation or career explanation. Ask a bounded question: “My case has a recruitment or evidence-to-decision question. Does this session examine those choices, and what permitted extract may I submit?” Confirm any selection, experience or booking requirement separately. SGInnovate’s calendar is a discovery route; a design or technology category does not confirm a research reviewer, accepted submission or current place.

• SGInnovate event calendar ↗ · Source checked 20 October 2026

Practise the selection with three fictional offers

These arrangements are invented. Review A examines layout and screen presentation, with no methods discussion stated. Review B accepts a short case note and discusses the connection between research, interpretation and a design choice; its submission conditions still need checking. Session C explains user research in a lecture and allows selected audience questions, without participant case review. A researcher whose case jumps from interview notes to an unmeasured impact claim has a reason to investigate B’s actual review route. A may improve how the case reads while leaving the claim unresolved. C can supply background without taking ownership of the case. Keep the useful activity and its missing access condition together; these descriptions allocate no real Singapore review turn.

Label the material you can actually share

Before submitting, establish which extracts, summaries, images or recordings you may use and the session’s viewing, recording and retention arrangement. Removing a name does not by itself establish that the remaining material is shareable. If the real record is unavailable for public critique, use a clearly fictional exercise and state that it is not participant evidence. A combined character or invented dialogue needs an explicit representation boundary; use the existing composite-persona guide for that task. Do not recreate a plausible quote to fill a missing interview record. You can ask whether a case structure explains its limits without supplying private transcripts. Keep any inaccessible evidence marked unavailable rather than inviting a reviewer to assume it was independently checked.

Separate a clearer explanation from a stronger finding

Put each useful comment beside the part it addresses: case presentation, interpretation, study design or decision claim. If a reviewer cannot see your contribution, revising the case note may clarify existing work. If they ask whether the recruited people resemble the intended users, changing the slide cannot supply that missing evidence. In the fictional booking-term case, replacing “improved bookings” with “proposed a term explanation based on the notes reviewed” narrows the account to its established status. It does not make the proposal effective. Ask what observation or record would address the unresolved question. A peer’s suggestion is feedback to consider, not a new user finding or confirmation that the team adopted the change.

Finish the critique with a revision and an open evidence task

Keep six lines: claim reviewed; comment and its basis; case wording or representation changed; evidence unchanged or newly obtained; decision status; and question still open. Preserve the earlier version so the revision can be explained. For a specific interaction question, use the existing keyboard, form-recovery, persistent-label or visual-information guide; this portfolio review does not certify accessibility. Confirm whether another review of revised work is offered instead of assuming continued coaching. Use Boardzip’s free design search after preparing the note, then verify the actual programme and submission route. Search access is free; admission and case-feedback arrangements have their own terms. If no verified review accepts the question, keep the case note for a suitable opportunity without calling a visual showcase a completed methods assessment.