I hear this argument whenever there's a discussion of 'should designers learn to code'. I have two problems with it. First, it's an argument for a very select

I hear this argument whenever there's a discussion of 'should designers learn to code'. I have two problems with it. First, it's an argument for a very select set of design+engineering projects. In almost all real world situations, designing something that is possible to build without 'pushing the boundaries' means a design that might actually get implemented. Not everyone works on the bleeding edge of engineering, nor should they if they want to focus on all the other obstacles to creating a successful product. Most organizations have technical debt and UX debt as it is. Second, why does understanding the engineering side of the equation mean an inability to come up with boundary-pushing design solutions? If anything it would seem to mean an informed pushing of the boundaries when it's actually necessary for a design. It's like the advice English teachers give out -- learn the rules before you break them.