Source:
../workshop.html· Type: Workshop · Audience: Product and engineering teams · Mode: Live facilitation · Time: 90 min Fictional case. The deck is the current implementation; this file captures the brief, structure, and acceptance.
Product and engineering teams; 12–20 participants at tables of four.
Intent: Leave with a review plan and three guard rules.
Decision or action: Adopt one rule in the next review.
Success: Each table produces a flow, a criterion that can fail, and a rule.
Objective → warm-up → concept → example → exercise 1 → exercise 2 → share → close.
| # | Slide | Budget | Purpose / speaker cue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design review that catches what CI cannot | 2 | Start on time. |
| 2 | Objective | 3 | Point to the worksheet. |
| 3 | Warm-up | 5 | Run a think-pair-share. |
| 4 | Concept | 8 | Use a recent bug as the example. |
| 5 | Example | 7 | Tell the story briefly. |
| 6 | Exercise 1 — map the flow | 15 | Circulate. |
| 7 | Exercise 2 — write the criteria | 15 | Give an example: ‘Keyboard-only user can dismiss the sheet and focus returns to the trigger.’ Then let them work. |
| 8 | Share and feedback | 15 | Keep time. |
| 9 | Close | 5 | End on time. |
One real bug that passed CI; a keyboard walkthrough example; no fictional metrics.
Fact-check gate: confirm names, numbers, dates, and comparisons before layout. A precise number without a date and source is a liability.
Facilitator voice; short instructions; timeboxes; ask, don’t tell.
Light warm, green accent; exercise cards; large timers; minimal slides.
90 minutes; 15-minute exercises. Must-cut: example detail; protect the exercises and the share. (total budget: 75 minutes)
Q&A: prepare the ten most likely questions and one honest answer for each. Do not improvise a fact.
Risks: Lecture creep; one table dominates; no tangible output.
Open: Confirm room layout, table size, and whether teams bring a real flow.