SUMMARY
Purpose: Dot Voting helps teams prioritise ideas, features, or research findings quickly and democratically during collaborative workshops.
Design Thinking Phase: Ideate
Time: 45–60 min session + 1–2 hours analysis
Difficulty: ⭐⭐
When to use: During ideation, to narrow down a long list of potential solutions When aligning cross-functional teams around priorities When time-boxing decisions in design sprints or workshops
What it is
Dot Voting (also known as “Dotmocracy”) is a simple group exercise used to prioritise options based on collective input. Participants are given a fixed number of votes (usually sticky dots or digital stickers) to assign to the ideas or options they value most. The votes are then tallied to surface group preferences and initiate informed discussions.
📺 Video by NNgroup. Embedded for educational reference.
Why it matters
Product design often involves too many good ideas—and not enough time to pursue them all. Dot Voting provides a fast, bias-resistant way to make collective decisions and narrow focus. It helps product teams move from exploration to action, reducing ambiguity while amplifying shared ownership of next steps.
When to use
- Early in solutioning phases when you have multiple divergent ideas
- To prioritise problems found in research before aligning on design solutions
- When resolving team conflict by democratising input in a structured way
Benefits
- Rich Insights: Helps uncover themes and preferences across team members or stakeholders
- Flexibility: Can be used for ideas, features, bugs, content, or questions
- User Empathy: Prioritisation is often better when ideas are backed by real user insights or personas
How to use it
Here’s a common process for running Dot Voting in a remote or in-person setting:
- Collect ideas or items on sticky notes (physical or digital).
- Clarify the voting criteria (e.g., best idea overall, most feasible, highest impact).
- Give each participant a set number of votes—typically 3–5.
- Let everyone vote silently and simultaneously to avoid bias.
- Count the votes and identify the most supported items.
- Discuss the results and agree on what to take forward.
Example Output
After a prioritisation session on onboarding pain points, your team tallies votes and finds:
- “Too many required fields” – 9 votes
- “No guest checkout option” – 7 votes
- “Unclear password rules” – 3 votes
- “Missing field validation” – 1 vote
You proceed by redesigning the top two items backed by UX evidence gathered in prior usability testing.
Common Pitfalls
- Voting before understanding: Teams sometimes skip thorough discussion or clarification before voting. Always review the meaning behind each item first.
- Over-favouring feasibility: Ideas that feel “easier” tend to rise fast, even if impact isn’t highest. Mitigate this by setting evaluation criteria clearly.
- Ignoring data: Use insights from research or user evidence to support what gets shortlisted—not just opinion or intuition.
10 Design-Ready AI Prompts for Dot Voting – UX/UI Edition
How These Prompts Work (C.S.I.R. Framework)
Each of the templates below follows the C.S.I.R. method — a proven structure for writing clear, effective prompts that get better results from ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or any other LLM.
C.S.I.R. stands for:
- Context: Who you are and the UX situation you're working in
- Specific Info: Key design inputs, tasks, or constraints the AI should consider
- Intent: What you want the AI to help you achieve
- Response Format: The structure or format you want the AI to return (e.g. checklist, table, journey map)
Level up your career with smarter AI prompts. Get templates used by UX leaders — no guesswork, just results. Design faster, research smarter, and ship with confidence. First one’s free. Unlock all 10 by becoming a member.
Prompt Template 1: “Summarise and Cluster Dot Voting Results:”
Summarise and Cluster Dot Voting Results:
Context: You are a Product Designer reviewing sticky-note votes from a recent ideation session with 8 stakeholders.
Specific Info: The data includes 40 notes across 3 themes (UX flows, content gaps, accessibility issues). Top-voted notes have 6+, others have 1–2.
Intent: Help me cluster similar voted ideas into actionable categories and summarise key opportunity areas.
Response Format: Return a table with cluster name, item summary, total votes, and design implication.
If themes or vote totals need clarification, ask before proceeding.
Suggest one follow-up question to guide refinement or next steps.
Prompt Template 2: “Draft Facilitation Notes for a Voting Workshop:”
Draft Facilitation Notes for a Voting Workshop:
Context: You are the Design Lead planning a 1-hour prioritisation session with cross-functional stakeholders.
Specific Info: The session involves Dot Voting on 25 backlog items (bugs, UX issues, wishlist features) in digital whiteboard format.
Intent: Prepare clear guidance to keep the session focused, equitable, and time-efficient.
Response Format: Provide a facilitation script with time estimates, transitions, and instructions for each stage.
If session duration or team roles are unclear, ask clarifying questions.
Offer tips for remote collaboration if applicable.
Prompt Template 3: “Create Voting Criteria that Balance Feasibility and Value:”
Create Voting Criteria that Balance Feasibility and Value:
Context: You are a Senior UX Designer running prioritisation as part of a design sprint for a fintech product.
Specific Info: Ideas range from new flows to backend-triggered nudges. Stakeholders vary across tech and compliance.
Intent: Develop voting criteria that assess desirability, feasibility, and strategic alignment.
Response Format: Return a list of 5 criteria with definitions and score tips.
If domain constraints (e.g. regulatory) need more context, prompt me to clarify.
Prompt Template 4: “Turn Raw Sticky-Note Outputs into Design Opportunities:”
Turn Raw Sticky-Note Outputs into Design Opportunities:
Context: You’re refining insights from a co-design session focused on first-time user pain points.
Specific Info: You have ~30 sticky notes (free-text ideas, pain points, themes) but lack clear groupings.
Intent: Synthesise the content into meaningful design opportunities.
Response Format: Group ideas into themes and summarise 3–5 opportunity statements using user-centred phrasing.
If user personas or flows are needed, ask for details before grouping.
Prompt Template 5: “Identify Bias in Dot Voting Results:”
Identify Bias in Dot Voting Results:
Context: You’re analysing outcomes from a prioritisation session where team leads dominated discussion before voting.
Specific Info: Items with fewer votes were mentioned by quiet participants or not discussed openly.
Intent: Identify signs of voting bias and suggest mitigations for future sessions.
Response Format: Return RED-FLAG indicators of bias and 3 mitigation strategies.
Ask if participant roles or voting order varied if this affects assessment.
Prompt Template 6: “Summarise Stakeholder Priorities After Voting Session:”
Summarise Stakeholder Priorities After Voting Session:
Context: You’re documenting next steps after prioritising UX debt issues across three teams.
Specific Info: Vote results are captured in FigJam with comments by engineering and product leads.
Intent: Write a summary capturing who favoured what and why, highlighting next actions.
Response Format: Provide 3 paragraphs — key findings, cross-team consensus, action items.
Ask if I should include screenshots or links in documentation style.
Prompt Template 7: “Map Voted Items to the Product Roadmap”
Map Voted Items to the Product Roadmap:
Context: You are a Product Designer preparing dot voting results for quarterly roadmap planning.
Specific Info: 15 feature ideas were voted on; your goal is to link high-vote items to themes on the roadmap.
Intent: Help position dot voting outcomes within broader delivery timeline.
Response Format: Return a markdown table with roadmap theme, feature idea, votes, and recommended quarter.
Ask follow-up if roadmap themes or resource plans are unclear.
Prompt Template 8: “Generate Visual Summary of Voting Results for Stakeholders:”
Generate Visual Summary of Voting Results for Stakeholders:
Context: You’ve just facilitated a prioritisation workshop and need a concise visual to share outcomes.
Specific Info: Ideas were clustered around performance, onboarding, messaging. Top votes = 12, lowest = 1.
Intent: Create a clear visual summary suitable for email or key stakeholder readout.
Response Format: Describe a simple bar chart, pie, or heatmap with labels, titles, and takeaway annotations.
Ask if I prefer a slide-ready version or raw design concept.
Prompt Template 9: “Create a Voting Template for Remote Teams in FigJam or Miro:”
Create a Voting Template for Remote Teams in FigJam or Miro:
Context: You’re running virtual workshops for UX research synthesis.
Specific Info: Needs to work asynchronously and maintain vote visibility.
Intent: Design a reusable template for teams to add insights and vote efficiently.
Response Format: Describe sections, layout, voting mechanics, and tips for adoption.
Ask if I use FigJam or Miro first before recommending platform specifics.
Prompt Template 10: “Extract Top Themes from Voting Results for Journey Mapping”
Extract Top Themes from Voting Results for Journey Mapping:
Context: You’re planning the next iteration of a user journey map using prioritisation outcomes from your latest workshop.
Specific Info: 10+ pain points were voted on by customer support and product design. Highest vote = 14.
Intent: Convert top-voted issues into journey touchpoints and insights.
Response Format: Return a list of journey stages, related pain points, and a potential improvement per stage.
Clarify whether I need B2B or B2C user flow examples before you generate.
Recommended Tools
- Miro – Best for running real-time dot voting remotely
- FigJam – Integrated with Figma for co-ideation
- Looppanel – Usability insights that link to prioritisation votes
