5 ms·

I like — and by "like" I mean "am vaguely unhappy" — that this post and most posts like it are written by a person or people whose idea of web design is slappin

I like — and by "like" I mean "am vaguely unhappy" — that this post and most posts like it are written by a person or people whose idea of web design is slapping a light color on another light color, adding padding, and then @font-facing in something that looks vaguely elegant. Is this design, meeting priorities in the simplest and most boring way imaginable? Is design simply matching proper lineheight to a fontsize, declaring it readable, and calling it a day? Is design making a vaguely pretty blog without also applying serious thought to what the contents of that blog will be? When was the last time you saw Jon Hicks or Elliot Jay Stocks or Jeff Zeldman or Shaun Inman write vapid entries like this about the definition of designer? When do the designers at Twitter or Tumblr write entries about how they define the word "design"? They don't, because they know that talking about words and positions and statuses like they mean something is silly. Words are what we make of them. They're especially dolled up by people who don't have any toys to play with but words. Designers can be anything and do anything. Same thing with "advertisers" and "artists" and "engineers" and "rockstars" and whatever other terms people decide to throw about themselves. Designers can write. Engineers can build web sites. EDIT: I see that the guy who wrote this post is on HN responding. Fred, I hope you can forgive my irritability and frustration — I really don't mean this as a jab at you. But I'm bothered that you try and define design in the basest terms — "a designer does X, Y, and Z" — and refuse to discuss the goals that design can achieve. You're talking about design like the whole point is to make a company a quick buck. I know a fuck of a lot of designers who'd really hate their jobs if that was all they were doing.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
fredoliveira 16y ago
Valid points - although I certainly didn't expect my words to be taken at face value and judged by the layout of the site itself, which I decided should be as simple as it could. My work is not this blog, I am not a writer, so when I write, I keep things simple (much like I like them when I read). Also, sometimes I'm just lazy when working for myself :-) I appreciate that you named a few people I'm friends with and whose work I respect. I also know they're not writing pieces like this - which I see as a problem. I do think awareness to the shifting role of the designer is necessary at this point. I've been in this industry for over 10 years now and design and designers are still undefined. Years ago I used to joke that everyone is a designer. Now that I'm taking less of an engineering (and design) role in companies and more into investing/advisory, I feel entrepreneurs and designers SHOULD be aware of what the market needs (and will expect soon) To answer your main point, which is that I didn't say what design should achieve. I didn't indeed - not in this post (check the previous posts for that). I am CERTAINLY (and this is where we'll disagree on the interpretation of my words) not saying design is a way to make companies a quick buck - it is a differentiating factor in the success at startups (and I've seen quite a few in my work, trust me). I would really hate my job if that was all I was doing. My other posts may be more interesting if you're looking for actionable stuff.
- rorymarinich 16y ago
  Fair enough. :-) I also know they're not writing pieces like this - which I see as a problem. I do think awareness to the shifting role of the designer is necessary at this point. But I still don't agree with this. If anything, I think we need more designers to step up and say "The idea of a 'designer' is dead. Stop pretending like it's possible to be a professional in this day and age; we're all amateurs of differing degrees. There's more to learn than you'll ever be able to learn, so all that matters is that you learn the things you care about learning. Stop wasting time defining things, separating them into canons and non-canons, pretending like success necessarily defines designers or adds an extra meaning to their work." I'm primarily studying advertising right now — though it's certainly not my only or even primary interest — and one thing that attracts me to the study is that the top advertisers on the planet have been saying this for a decade. Agencies like Wieden+Kennedy and the Barbarian Group turn out some work that's so beyond the kin of what we recognize as advertising that it forces you to acknowledge that the old definitions have been thrown out the window, regardless of whether some people insist they're still there. Design hasn't gotten there yet: It's a more conservative field than advertising. (I mean, so is everything. That's the whole idea of being in advertising.) Even the people I just named tend to be more conservative with their designs than the half-generation following them is going to be. Of all the ones I named I think only Inman and the Twitter team are really doing something new, and even they aren't off-the-walls crazy. Not that there's anything bad with that. But certainly one of the reasons I'm not primarily a designer is that it's one of the few artistic fields whose education focuses on old tried-and-true standards rather than on the crazy things that happened last week or yesterday or earlier today. A whole lot of design feels appallingly stagnant. (I'd love to talk this with you more in-depth, by the way — would you mind if I shot you an email?)
  - fredoliveira 16y ago
    Your second (technically, third) paragraph won me over - you are absolutely right :-) That needs a more prominent place to live than a comment here at HN - people need to read it. I don't mind you shooting me an email - not at all. I'm swamped with email, however, so I may take a bit to get back to you. But I definitely will.
lwhi 16y ago
To be fair, design usually does involve making a company a quick buck. On one level, design is applied art -> involving artistic principles to achieve a specific purpose. Because we live in a highly commercial world, that purpose usually involves making money. What's the difference between art and design? In my opinion; design is prstitution, art is msturbation. Why bother thinking about definitions? Because doing so provides a framework for examining related ideas and concepts. EDIT: removed some letters from two (possibly?) inflammatory words, and reposted - as the post was listed as [dead]. Would this have been the reason? EDIT2: Re. my comparison of art and design, I was being flippant - but I was also trying to highlight motivation without putting either on a pedestal. A designer has to do create work for someone else, for money. An artist creates work for more selfish reasons - to please themselves.
- rorymarinich 16y ago
  Hahaha. Don't worry too much about being inflammatory. My old HN account was frozen due to my habit of using naughty words; I don't mind them being aimed at me, as long as we can still shake hands afterwards. I do think your art/design comparisons are a bit un-thought-out, obviously. Art can't be masturbation when you do it alongside a bunch of other people. It's more an orgy than anything. Design, meanwhile, would be like prostitution if prostitutes had the option of sculpting you a statue instead of... er, this simile has gotten silly and I'm going to cancel it immediately. The problem with treating design as a strictly commercial enterprise is that the standards required to be commercially viable are laughably simple. I self-taught myself enough about design to be getting paid commissions in my late teens. The ability to simply typeset a paragraph and add padding is so rare (compared to the rest of the populace) that if you've got it and parade it loudly, some people will be convinced enough to give you money. The real challenge of modern design is this: How do you manage to be competent and memorable? Memorable is the challenge, because it necessarily means doing something that nobody else is doing. Which is hard. On the Internet there're maybe half a dozen people who are able to be reliably memorable — and we'd disagree if we started naming which people we thought counted. But a part of being memorable necessarily means doing crazy things that don't work in an attempt to discover the rare brilliant crazy idea that somehow pays off. You'll never get that if you don't strive higher than is strictly commercially necessary.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

fredoliveira 16y ago

Valid points - although I certainly didn't expect my words to be taken at face value and judged by the layout of the site itself, which I decided should be as simple as it could. My work is not this blog, I am not a writer, so when I write, I keep things simple (much like I like them when I read). Also, sometimes I'm just lazy when working for myself :-) I appreciate that you named a few people I'm friends with and whose work I respect. I also know they're not writing pieces like this - which I see as a problem. I do think awareness to the shifting role of the designer is necessary at this point. I've been in this industry for over 10 years now and design and designers are still undefined. Years ago I used to joke that everyone is a designer. Now that I'm taking less of an engineering (and design) role in companies and more into investing/advisory, I feel entrepreneurs and designers SHOULD be aware of what the market needs (and will expect soon) To answer your main point, which is that I didn't say what design should achieve. I didn't indeed - not in this post (check the previous posts for that). I am CERTAINLY (and this is where we'll disagree on the interpretation of my words) not saying design is a way to make companies a quick buck - it is a differentiating factor in the success at startups (and I've seen quite a few in my work, trust me). I would really hate my job if that was all I was doing. My other posts may be more interesting if you're looking for actionable stuff.

rorymarinich 16y ago
Fair enough. :-) I also know they're not writing pieces like this - which I see as a problem. I do think awareness to the shifting role of the designer is necessary at this point. But I still don't agree with this. If anything, I think we need more designers to step up and say "The idea of a 'designer' is dead. Stop pretending like it's possible to be a professional in this day and age; we're all amateurs of differing degrees. There's more to learn than you'll ever be able to learn, so all that matters is that you learn the things you care about learning. Stop wasting time defining things, separating them into canons and non-canons, pretending like success necessarily defines designers or adds an extra meaning to their work." I'm primarily studying advertising right now — though it's certainly not my only or even primary interest — and one thing that attracts me to the study is that the top advertisers on the planet have been saying this for a decade. Agencies like Wieden+Kennedy and the Barbarian Group turn out some work that's so beyond the kin of what we recognize as advertising that it forces you to acknowledge that the old definitions have been thrown out the window, regardless of whether some people insist they're still there. Design hasn't gotten there yet: It's a more conservative field than advertising. (I mean, so is everything. That's the whole idea of being in advertising.) Even the people I just named tend to be more conservative with their designs than the half-generation following them is going to be. Of all the ones I named I think only Inman and the Twitter team are really doing something new, and even they aren't off-the-walls crazy. Not that there's anything bad with that. But certainly one of the reasons I'm not primarily a designer is that it's one of the few artistic fields whose education focuses on old tried-and-true standards rather than on the crazy things that happened last week or yesterday or earlier today. A whole lot of design feels appallingly stagnant. (I'd love to talk this with you more in-depth, by the way — would you mind if I shot you an email?)
- fredoliveira 16y ago
  Your second (technically, third) paragraph won me over - you are absolutely right :-) That needs a more prominent place to live than a comment here at HN - people need to read it. I don't mind you shooting me an email - not at all. I'm swamped with email, however, so I may take a bit to get back to you. But I definitely will.

lwhi 16y ago

To be fair, design usually does involve making a company a quick buck. On one level, design is applied art -> involving artistic principles to achieve a specific purpose. Because we live in a highly commercial world, that purpose usually involves making money. What's the difference between art and design? In my opinion; design is prstitution, art is msturbation. Why bother thinking about definitions? Because doing so provides a framework for examining related ideas and concepts. EDIT: removed some letters from two (possibly?) inflammatory words, and reposted - as the post was listed as [dead]. Would this have been the reason? EDIT2: Re. my comparison of art and design, I was being flippant - but I was also trying to highlight motivation without putting either on a pedestal. A designer has to do create work for someone else, for money. An artist creates work for more selfish reasons - to please themselves.

rorymarinich 16y ago
Hahaha. Don't worry too much about being inflammatory. My old HN account was frozen due to my habit of using naughty words; I don't mind them being aimed at me, as long as we can still shake hands afterwards. I do think your art/design comparisons are a bit un-thought-out, obviously. Art can't be masturbation when you do it alongside a bunch of other people. It's more an orgy than anything. Design, meanwhile, would be like prostitution if prostitutes had the option of sculpting you a statue instead of... er, this simile has gotten silly and I'm going to cancel it immediately. The problem with treating design as a strictly commercial enterprise is that the standards required to be commercially viable are laughably simple. I self-taught myself enough about design to be getting paid commissions in my late teens. The ability to simply typeset a paragraph and add padding is so rare (compared to the rest of the populace) that if you've got it and parade it loudly, some people will be convinced enough to give you money. The real challenge of modern design is this: How do you manage to be competent and memorable? Memorable is the challenge, because it necessarily means doing something that nobody else is doing. Which is hard. On the Internet there're maybe half a dozen people who are able to be reliably memorable — and we'd disagree if we started naming which people we thought counted. But a part of being memorable necessarily means doing crazy things that don't work in an attempt to discover the rare brilliant crazy idea that somehow pays off. You'll never get that if you don't strive higher than is strictly commercially necessary.