4 ms·

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 l

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
  Thanks for the nice counter-argument. I think you're probably right in practice. My opinion stems from two things. First, HMTL and CSS are trivially easy for me and consume only a small fraction of time I spend on the design process. I imagine this applies to almost all of those who share the opinion that you must know HMTL and CSS to be a web designer. You make a strong argument that this is not a necessity to being a top-notch designer. But where my passion in this debate really stems from is my recent experience completing a graduate program in architecture. We were mentored to experiment with our medium; to uncover the materials' latent properties and capabilities, incorporating a bottom-up design process. This was (and is) highly unusual and controversial. Opposed to this is a purely top-down process, subject to the whims and inspirations of a single designer. The idea and form come first, and they are then imposed on an inert medium. I see parallels to web design. Photoshop enables top-down thinking. The web (through HTML and CSS) are inert -- they are at the will of whatever form Photoshop demands. But I see something different in the code. I see a rich source of inspiration. I see capabilities, limitations, and tendencies. I see a "charged" source of untapped potential. It's true, there are many valid sources of inspiration outside of code. Most of them, actually. But if no designers looked to HMTL and CSS for inspiration, I think a lot of potential would be lost.
- studiofellow 15y ago
  Your point is you look for well-rounded designers, not just designers who can code. Knowledge of code is one thing that makes a designer well-rounded, in addition to the other points you mentioned. I don't think anyone is saying photoshop and html are enough on their own!

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
Thanks for the nice counter-argument. I think you're probably right in practice. My opinion stems from two things. First, HMTL and CSS are trivially easy for me and consume only a small fraction of time I spend on the design process. I imagine this applies to almost all of those who share the opinion that you must know HMTL and CSS to be a web designer. You make a strong argument that this is not a necessity to being a top-notch designer. But where my passion in this debate really stems from is my recent experience completing a graduate program in architecture. We were mentored to experiment with our medium; to uncover the materials' latent properties and capabilities, incorporating a bottom-up design process. This was (and is) highly unusual and controversial. Opposed to this is a purely top-down process, subject to the whims and inspirations of a single designer. The idea and form come first, and they are then imposed on an inert medium. I see parallels to web design. Photoshop enables top-down thinking. The web (through HTML and CSS) are inert -- they are at the will of whatever form Photoshop demands. But I see something different in the code. I see a rich source of inspiration. I see capabilities, limitations, and tendencies. I see a "charged" source of untapped potential. It's true, there are many valid sources of inspiration outside of code. Most of them, actually. But if no designers looked to HMTL and CSS for inspiration, I think a lot of potential would be lost.
studiofellow 15y ago
Your point is you look for well-rounded designers, not just designers who can code. Knowledge of code is one thing that makes a designer well-rounded, in addition to the other points you mentioned. I don't think anyone is saying photoshop and html are enough on their own!