5 ms·

One day Andy figured something out: if you say bold, polarizing things, you can get a lot of people talking. Since then, Andy's done very well by this finding,

One day Andy figured something out: if you say bold, polarizing things, you can get a lot of people talking. Since then, Andy's done very well by this finding, and he has milked it rather vigorously. This grows tiring, though, because such polemic tends to be free of fidelity. Andy tells us that he'll never hire people who are out-of-shape because they have character flaws. He publicly "redesigns" websites, making bold, unsubstantiated claims, free of any understanding of the functional design requirements. Then, he puts antagonistic bunk like this out there. The problem with the post linked here, is that it presents opinion as dogmatic fact, when many strong arguments can be made for another approach. Meanwhile, this notion is, in my mind, quite dangerous to young designers who are already trying to learn too many things. I don't hire designers who write code. I hire designers, developers, and strategists who work well together. They all work, literally, next to one another. By this, I mean that we don't pocket designers in one corner and developers into another, like some agencies do. Instead, a designer sits next to a strategist, who sits next to a developer, and so on. By doing so, each of the professionals we've hired learns why their colleagues' concerns matter. Meanwhile, by allowing each to be concentrate on their respective craft, we do better work for our clients. For the record, I think it's great if you're a designer who can write a little code. That being said, I think it's much more important if you can communicate well, write effective briefs, build good wireframes, think about big picture strategic concerns, and all kinds of other stuff. Then of course, I've played right into Andy's game. Once again, his bull-in-a-china-shop act has resulted in my saying more than I probably should.

tedkimble 15y ago
>> I hire designers, developers, and strategists who work well together. I think the biggest problem in these conversations is misaligned terminology in our conversations. Based on the rest of your post (and only this post), I would rewrite your sentences as: I hire artists, developers, and designers who work well together.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- karjaluoto 15y ago
  No, you're incorrect. We don't ever hire artists (in spite of the fact that I trained to be one). Very few groups hire actual artists, in spite of how many people would like to think of themselves in such a way. We do, however, hire strategists. Our strategists shape the overall direction for our projects. Establishing these big picture plans allows our designers to then concentrate on effectively using visual language to act upon the chosen direction. Further reading: http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/04/put-down-your-crayons/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/04/put-down-your-crayons/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/08/the-rules/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/08/the-rules/
  - tedkimble 15y ago
    I think we're likely on the same page. But your original post made me think differently, particularly this line: >> I don't hire designers who write code. I liked your article "Put Down Your Crayons". We should all be "design thinkers". But I just don't understand how you can really think about design on the web without fully knowing and writing HTML and CSS.
    - karjaluoto 15y ago
      I lot of people share that opinion; nevertheless, I disagree with it. There's a lot of thinking relating to design on the web that doesn't have anything to do with code. Big picture strategy, overall user experience, effective use of visual language, and a litany of other things are complex areas deserving the attention of the designer. We hire smart people to think about design, and other smart people to worry about code. This works very well. Some purists believe you need to distill a pursuit down to its base elements, in order to consider yourself a master. While I appreciate the noble sentiment behind such notions, I believe it to be flawed. For example, I knew one fellow in art school who insisted on grinding down pigment and making his own paint before he'd touch brush to canvas. The unfortunate part for him, was that all the time he put into this kept him from doing the important part: making great paintings. A good interaction designer needs to understand the limitations and possibilities of code. They don't need to be a master of it, so long as they work with someone who does. A reasonable comparison would be Peter Jackson. He makes great movies, because he hires individuals with great talent in their respective fields; then he concentrates on the "movie making" part. My hunch is that if he were to stitch together each garment for the film, he'd never finish a production. The irony in my arguments is that they are, in ways, as impassioned as Andy's. Nevertheless, I believe mine have less manipulative ends in mind. My perspective on this one is largely informed by some of the (many) unsuccessful applicants who wish to work at our agency. The vast majority try to do everything, and therefore excel at nothing; I'd love to see more of those folks focus, and become really good at one thing.

tedkimble 15y ago

>> I hire designers, developers, and strategists who work well together. I think the biggest problem in these conversations is misaligned terminology in our conversations. Based on the rest of your post (and only this post), I would rewrite your sentences as: I hire artists, developers, and designers who work well together.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
karjaluoto 15y ago
No, you're incorrect. We don't ever hire artists (in spite of the fact that I trained to be one). Very few groups hire actual artists, in spite of how many people would like to think of themselves in such a way. We do, however, hire strategists. Our strategists shape the overall direction for our projects. Establishing these big picture plans allows our designers to then concentrate on effectively using visual language to act upon the chosen direction. Further reading: http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/04/put-down-your-crayons/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/04/put-down-your-crayons/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/08/the-rules/ http://www.ideasonideas.com/2011/08/the-rules/
- tedkimble 15y ago
  I think we're likely on the same page. But your original post made me think differently, particularly this line: >> I don't hire designers who write code. I liked your article "Put Down Your Crayons". We should all be "design thinkers". But I just don't understand how you can really think about design on the web without fully knowing and writing HTML and CSS.
  - karjaluoto 15y ago
    I lot of people share that opinion; nevertheless, I disagree with it. There's a lot of thinking relating to design on the web that doesn't have anything to do with code. Big picture strategy, overall user experience, effective use of visual language, and a litany of other things are complex areas deserving the attention of the designer. We hire smart people to think about design, and other smart people to worry about code. This works very well. Some purists believe you need to distill a pursuit down to its base elements, in order to consider yourself a master. While I appreciate the noble sentiment behind such notions, I believe it to be flawed. For example, I knew one fellow in art school who insisted on grinding down pigment and making his own paint before he'd touch brush to canvas. The unfortunate part for him, was that all the time he put into this kept him from doing the important part: making great paintings. A good interaction designer needs to understand the limitations and possibilities of code. They don't need to be a master of it, so long as they work with someone who does. A reasonable comparison would be Peter Jackson. He makes great movies, because he hires individuals with great talent in their respective fields; then he concentrates on the "movie making" part. My hunch is that if he were to stitch together each garment for the film, he'd never finish a production. The irony in my arguments is that they are, in ways, as impassioned as Andy's. Nevertheless, I believe mine have less manipulative ends in mind. My perspective on this one is largely informed by some of the (many) unsuccessful applicants who wish to work at our agency. The vast majority try to do everything, and therefore excel at nothing; I'd love to see more of those folks focus, and become really good at one thing.