Everyone thinks Figma comments are the final word on client feedback. That they’re the ultimate tool to capture every client thought, every revision request, every approval. None of that is wrong. But it’s incomplete.
The hard truth? Relying solely on Figma comments creates blind spots. It’s a single piece of a much larger, more complex puzzle. And missing pieces mean missed details, wasted time, and unhappy clients.
1. The Illusion of Centralization
Figma comments live inside Figma. That’s their strength. They’re tied directly to the design element being discussed. Easy, right?
Except clients don't live in Figma. Neither do account managers, project leads, or QA testers. They’re juggling multiple projects, multiple tools, and multiple communication channels.
When feedback lives only in Figma, it gets siloed. It requires everyone to log into Figma, find the right file, navigate to the right page, and then parse a wall of comments. This isn’t efficient. It’s a bottleneck.
The Comment Trail Problem
Figma comments are linear. They thread. But tracking complex discussions, multiple rounds of feedback from different stakeholders, and final sign-offs becomes a chore. Did Sarah approve this version? Or was that John’s feedback from last week?
The comment history can become a graveyard of outdated suggestions and unresolved issues. It’s easy to miss a crucial decision buried under dozens of other conversations.
Beyond the Design File
Feedback isn’t just about design elements. It’s about:
- Strategic alignment: Does this meet the brief?
- Technical feasibility: Can we build this?
- Brand consistency: Does this align with other assets?
- Legal/Compliance: Is this approved by legal?
These conversations often happen *outside* of Figma. In emails, Slack channels, or even phone calls. These crucial pieces of context get lost if they aren't captured systematically.
2. The Ambiguity of Approval
“Looks good!”
“Approved.”
“LGTM.”
In Figma, these can be comments. But are they formal approvals? Especially when they appear in a long thread of design critiques?
This ambiguity is a recipe for disaster. A stakeholder might say “Looks good” casually, intending it as a preliminary check, not a final sign-off. But the design team, eager to move forward, might interpret it as a green light.
The Lack of Formal Sign-off
Figma comments don’t offer a structured approval workflow. There’s no way to tag specific stakeholders for sign-off on a particular version. There’s no timestamped record of who approved what, and when.
This leads to:
- Scope creep: Clients revisiting decisions because they never formally approved them.
- Rework: Building based on a misunderstanding of approval status.
- Disputes: “I never approved that!” becomes a common refrain.
You need a clear, documented trail of who signed off on which version. Not just a comment buried in a thread.
3. The Revision Chaos
Figma’s strength is its collaborative editing. But when it comes to managing revisions based on client feedback, it can get messy.
Imagine this: You get feedback. You make changes. You leave a comment saying “Changes made per feedback.” Then the client adds more comments. You make more changes. Repeat.
How do you ensure you’re addressing the *latest* feedback on the *latest* version, and that the client knows which version they’re looking at?
Version Control Woes
While Figma has version history, it’s not always intuitive for managing client-facing revisions. Are you creating new files for each revision? Duplicating frames? It’s easy to lose track of the “live” or “approved” version.
Clients can get confused too. They might be looking at an old version in their inbox link while you’re working on a new one. This leads to feedback on the wrong iteration.
Context Switching Burnout
Designers are constantly switching contexts. From design to comments, to email, to Slack, back to design. This mental overhead drains productivity. The task-switching cost is real.
Each jump costs time and focus. It’s not just about the time spent *doing* the work, but the time lost *transitioning* between different communication and task management modes.
4. Quality Assurance Blind Spots
Figma comments are great for design-level feedback. But what about broader quality checks?
Is the copy error-free? Are all links working? Does the user flow make sense from a UX perspective, not just a visual one? Is the asset correctly exported for its intended use?
These are critical QA steps that often fall outside the scope of design comments. They require a dedicated process and checklist.
The Missing Checklist
A design file with hundreds of comments isn't a QA checklist. It's a discussion log. Without a formal QA process, things slip through the cracks.
- Typos and grammatical errors.
- Broken links or incorrect URLs.
- Inconsistent styling or spacing.
- Assets exported at the wrong resolution or format.
- Usability issues that aren't purely visual.
These might seem like small things, but they erode client trust and reflect poorly on your agency’s professionalism.
Where Revue Fits In
This is where a dedicated client feedback and approval tool like Revue becomes essential. It doesn't replace Figma’s design collaboration; it complements it.
Revue acts as the central hub for all client feedback, revision tracking, and formal approvals. It bridges the gap between the design tool and the broader project management workflow.
Imagine:
- Centralized Feedback: All feedback, whether from design discussions, email threads, or Slack messages, is logged in one place, linked to specific project milestones.
- Clear Revision History: Easily track each version of a design, see what feedback led to each revision, and present only the latest, most relevant iteration to the client.
- Formal Approvals: Implement a clear, auditable sign-off process. Stakeholders get notified, provide explicit approval, and a timestamped record is created. No more ambiguity.
- Integrated QA Checklists: Build and assign custom QA checklists to ensure every critical step is reviewed before final delivery.
- Reduced Context Switching: Your team stays focused on design and development, while project managers and account leads handle the feedback and approval workflow in Revue.
Revue streamlines the entire process, ensuring everyone is on the same page and that crucial details aren't lost in translation or buried in comment threads.
Final Thought
Figma comments are a powerful feature for in-the-moment design critique. But they are not a substitute for a robust client feedback and approval system. Are you treating them as such? And what's the real cost of that assumption to your agency’s efficiency and client relationships?
Frequently asked questions
Can Figma comments replace a formal approval process?
No. Figma comments are great for design critique but lack the structure for formal, auditable client approvals. A dedicated system ensures clear sign-offs on specific versions.
How do I ensure all client feedback is captured if it happens outside Figma?
Use a centralized platform like Revue to log feedback from all sources—emails, Slack, meetings—and link it to the project. This prevents crucial context from being lost.
What's the risk of relying only on Figma comments for revisions?
The risk is confusion and rework. Without a clear system to track versions and approvals, clients might reference old feedback, or teams might build on unapproved changes.
How can I improve quality assurance with client feedback?
Integrate custom QA checklists into your feedback process. This ensures critical checks beyond design aesthetics—like copy, links, and functionality—are consistently performed.