> Yes I would - it's not rocket science, though I'm not really interested in satisfying your demands for internet proof, sorry. If I were hiring a web designer

> Yes I would - it's not rocket science, though I'm not really interested in satisfying your demands for internet proof, sorry. If I were hiring a web designer I'd prefer one who was familiar with HTML and used it to design up to final templates over one who didn't, though of course I'm sure there'd be exceptions - there's no need for dogmatism about what makes a good designer. There's a huge difference between being "familiar with HTML" and what I described. It's this difference that can make or break a number of projects, especially when you're working on big budget jobs for clients that require legacy browser compatibility. > Specialisation also has drawbacks, and it's quite possible to be a bad specialist, just as it's possible to be a mediocre generalist. That doesn't mean that all generalists are incapable of producing clean HTML or good code, or that good designer means that they don't do development, and they stick to photoshop. It's possible, but they're often the exceptions that prove the rule. Either way, it's a huge stretch to call a developer specialising because they do "development".