Your work is not you. Of course your decisions shape the way your work comes out, and of course you used a considerable amount of time to create the work, so as

Your work is not you. Of course your decisions shape the way your work comes out, and of course you used a considerable amount of time to create the work, so as a result you are involved with it. But the key understand is if someone criticises your work, they don't usually target you — why would you even think they know who you are? When they criticise your work they take time to tell you why they feel or think your work could be better. Instead of taking that at face value ("shit I am bad at making good decisions") a good strategy is to take the causal root of the critic seriously, while taking the suggestions they make with a grain of salt. The former comes from a true place most of the time, the latter can stand and fall with the subjective interests and knowledge of the critic. So think about that causal root ("user had problems to understand X") and see it as a cause to think about the state of that project. See how it is not about you at all? It is about the project. Of course your decisions shaped that project, but isn't it possible that there are parts within that project where your decisions could have been better? Sometimes we all take decisions automatically without giving it a second thought, so a critic can be a way to provide another perspective, one that we might not have considered before — that is a value in itself.