3 ms·
In my opinion, we are having some serious problems with the words we are using. We are mixing aesthetics and stylizing with things like ui flows and product de
by demian 13y ago
In my opinion, we are having some serious problems with the words we are using.
We are mixing aesthetics and stylizing with things like ui flows and product design. Just becasue it's called "Design" it doesn't mean it can only be done by people with "Designer" on their titles. It seems that the only reason we are separating "Development" as another dicipline incapable of doing some of the things we call "Design" it's because we don't call it "Code Design".
A visual designer is as capable of developing a useful and functional ui design as a developer. Even if one is called "designer" and the other is not. Stylizing is another matter.
PS: My point is that some of the activities we are calling "Design" are VERY different to some of the other activities we are calling "Design". We lump them together because, well, they are called "Design". But they are not equivalent, not even related really, or at least not more related that some of those "Design" activities and "Programming".
As a metaphor, Architecture is not Interior Design, nor is Structural Engineering. An Interior Designer, by definition, is as prepared to do architecture as a Structural Engineer... and even less so in some cases. But with the right training, both can become Architects. Or for an example closer to software, Game Designers come from a lot of backgrounds, from art to writing to technology. Their backgrounds affect the type of design they do and their focus (Jon Blow, for example, prioritizes the "mechanical" design of the game, while Edmund McMillen works mainly from an stylistic point of view), but all of them are doing great game design.
- twelvechairs 13y agoYes. There is a huge difference between someone who has rote-learned to use helvetica, put lots of negative-space on the page and can mumble something about 'flat design' and 'skeuomorphics'; and someone who can actually sort out workflows for a user. 'UI flows' as you say are a black art. They require considerable individual thought for each application (and potentially every user). Often engineers if they put their mind to it could do this better than any 'designer'. Usually nobody does. I think this is usually because there is no reward for it - because it takes time and doesn't produce any clear result. Its the same in architecture (buildings) - I know because this is what I do for a living. People sell themselves as 'design-architects' but don't design good outcomes for the building's users because actually there is no incentive for them to put the time in.
- codeoclock 13y agoI was talking about web design and web development. I have no desire to be any other kind of designer.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI think he means there are different aspects to web design. You mention in your post that when you tried to design a site well you "ended up with a totally hideous website, using jarring colors, and too many fonts, with really thick borders and dense type." That's not all there is to design. For example I find I'm not very good at designing something that looks nice but I can design a site/app to work well for the user. The UX is good. Steve Jobs famously said "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." You and I may not be good at the aesthetic part of software design but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it all together. Software developers can still be good at 'how it works' and it's possible they might be better positioned than a UI designer to do this.