Ask HN: Do designers have access to GitHub? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do designers have access to GitHub?

2 pointssimonmales10 comments

Some companies require designers to have access to source control. Not particularly for pushing code, but for convenience.

For example: Access to the latest build of an application or the URL of a branch specific QA environment. Or are there workflows that require all team members to have GitHub accounts purely for the sake of SSO?

Other companies have zero need for designers to access source control.

Personally, as an engineer, I'm kind of shock when a new designer joins and doesn't even have an GitHub account.

View on HN

Generally, no.

GitHub access shouldn't imply all-or-nothing access to the code. The only reason to give someone GitHub access is if they're working with something stored in Git repositories. Most designers don't store anything in Git, so no need.

> Access to the latest build of an application

Generally, letting non-devs grab random nightly builds isn't as helpful as it sounds. If designers need a new build, they should ask for one from the team and get something that has been minimally vetted.

Handing out nightly builds outside of dev teams leads to a slew of unexpected problems, including a lot of complaints about known issues or a sentiment that the code is "buggy" because people don't understand what a nightly (or per-commit) build means to the dev team.

I have come across a number of teams where designers jump on a PR because it links a particular build they need to test.

Not particularly referring to a nightly build.

Personally asking for a vetted build seems a little slow. IMO designers should be able to discover that themselves.

> I have come across a number of teams where designers jump on a PR because it links a particular build they need to test.

Sounds great, right until the designers start misinterpreting things in the PR build and reporting bugs up their command chain, giving a bad impression of the developers.

Vetting doesn't mean it goes through a full Q&A release cycle. It just means that the team is ready to say "This build is good to go for testing, but beware that X, Y, and Z features are broken".

Honestly, letting designers have ad-hoc access to builds worked well for me at small companies where designers and devs were in the same room. It completely fell apart at larger or remote companies where the risk of misunderstandings and politics outweighed any benefit.

Sure, when you rub shoulders daily, then this hand off culture is easier to facilitate.

... if you realize that not every company needs designers to access source, why is it shocking to you that designers don't have GH accounts? (Totally ignoring the fact that a large percentage of companies doesn't even use Github for their source code)

Nothing stark, simply I assume that most designers would have dabbled in GitHub.

What is there to do on Github for the average designer if they don't need it for their specific job? (There are plenty developers who basically never use Github, and there's a lot more there for them)

I have worked with a number of designers who had to cut some sort of code in their life.

Which has biased me :)

You should know that, outside our highly technical milieu, most people know nothing about revision control, never mind industrial-grade collaborative stuff like this. You'll work better with these folks if you try to understand their world more, rather than expecting them to already understand yours.

I agree that we shouldn't be forcing the engineers tools into the hands of designers.

I am however fascinated when the two intersect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com