Web Design is Product Design
andyrutledge.com
andyrutledge.com
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.
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.
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/2011/08/the-rules/
>> 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.
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.
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.
There's also a similar issue with web developers who only focus on the backend and can't create decent HTML and CSS.
I think if you're working on anything web related you really need to be able to write decent HTML and CSS.
Architects know about building materials. Blacksmiths know about iron and steel. Furniture designers know about furniture materials. Etc...
What should web designers know about? For a growing number of them, it's Photoshop (or similar). You're getting downvoted because you're assuming they should know about HTML and CSS. I would tend to agree.
Edit: (Agree with needing to know HTML and CSS, that is)
I'm a designer who writes code. I built my career on being able to produce fully realized work where other designers couldn't. I've also worked with many many designers who cannot code and their work just isn't as strong. The solutions aren't as well thought out, and often they are difficult to execute. I can produce a functioning prototype in half the time it takes a Photoshop-only designer and a developer to collaborate. And the result is better. Don't get me wrong—there are many better designers than me. But I am certain my knowledge of code makes me a better designer.
Downvote probably deserved—my comment was a bit rude. However my point stands. Like people are saying below, we've been through all this before.
Posters, business cards, logos, books all need to go through a printing (or other) process to get applied to paper (or another surface). And you get the best results when you know a bit about the printing process, how paper absorbs ink, the effect of varnishes, etc. That doesn't mean you need to do your own printing.
Graphic design is also experience design. That poster is going to hang on some wall, complement the context, and catch the attention of people passing by. Then when people are drawn in, it needs to communicate clearly.
So not sure why web design is different in this respect.
It's because to design for any medium you must understand its capabilities and its tendencies. Those too exist on the web, even if they are easily forgotten -- the web pages's tendency to scroll; its capability to be resized; its capabilities of being receiving new content and return visitors.
There is so much untapped potential lying dorment in the web medium, passing by all of those who resist to use HTML, CSS, and a browser during experimentation. It's depressing.
As for the untapped potential in the web medium: it's a bit naive to think that understanding CSS transforms will truly, fundamentally, change a way the designer decides to present a piece of information.
Where would you draw the line? Why shouldn't designers know Unix and TCP/IP programming as well, since those are both part of the medium they design for.
I beg to differ. Clothing designers know their fabrics. Blacksmiths know their metals. Leather makers know their leathers. Architects know their building materials. And yes, car designers and iPhone designers know their mediums too. I could go on.
I guarantee Jony Ive can tell you all about the capabilities, tendencies, and limitations of the glass, plastic, steel that comprise the iPhone. You think car designers don't know precisely how steel can be formed and about the processes that form it?
But yet web designers don't need to know HTML and CSS. It's by far the easiest medium to know of all those I mentioned. I agree with another poster: It's lazy.
It goes without saying that designers should know how people will interact with their products, but knowing how to code is just one way to do that, and it is not the only one.
There is often an overlap with coders and people who have a good grasp of what is involved in front end development, including all the limitations and properties of the web, for obvious reasons. However, this does not make coding a necessity.