Who codes your production HTML/CSS/JS?

24 Apr 2009 - 9:39am
5 years ago
30 replies
944 reads
Richard Dalton
2008

Who codes your production quality HTML/CSS/Javascript? Where in the
organization do they sit and do they do more than just
HTML/CSS/Javascript (ie, Java, mid-tier, etc)?

I'm trying to gauge how closely connected to the Design resources
they are, are they more aligned to Design or more to Development?

- Richard

Comments

24 Apr 2009 - 9:58am
Dave Malouf
2005

This has been an "it depends" question for me.
1) It depends on where I was in my career. The higher up I went the
less likely I was coding. (the same is also true of graphic
production.
2) It also depended on what I was designing for. The question is
biased towards Web design. Not everything I've designed has had a
web interface or a graphical interface at all.
3) What was the make up, culture and organization of the company I
was working for.

There have been times where I was responsible for production code as
a designer role and there have been times where I didn't do anything
past wireframes.

I think it is also important to realize that code can be more
separated. There are layers of code and these can be separated out.
This is the model of separating code from design that Expression
Suite is trying to bring in where the graphical is "code" or mark
up separate from the processing code or behavioral code.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 9:59am
rseiji
2008

I do.

An interface implementation team from the design side does the html+css
(data structure + styling) and the development team does js (behavior).This
approach allow us to decreases production time.

Regards,
Ricardo Seiji

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Richard Dalton <richard at mauvyrusset.com>wrote:

> Who codes your production quality HTML/CSS/Javascript? Where in the
> organization do they sit and do they do more than just
> HTML/CSS/Javascript (ie, Java, mid-tier, etc)?
>
> I'm trying to gauge how closely connected to the Design resources
> they are, are they more aligned to Design or more to Development?
>
> - Richard
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

24 Apr 2009 - 10:19am
Jack L. Moffett
2005

It varies somewhat, but I typically implement the HTML and CSS, while
the developers do the JavaScript. I know HTML and CSS better than the
developers do, and I don't know JS. There are times that I'm too busy
to deliver HTML and CSS (I'm shared across many projects), so there
are times that the developer has to do it all.

Best,
Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Senior Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

Simplicity is not the goal.
It is the by-product of a good idea
and modest expectations.

- Paul Rand

24 Apr 2009 - 10:11am
John Labriola
2009

I am more in line with Dave. It always depended where I was and what
role I played. Sometimes there was a front-end developers for the
role, sometimes a developer who did fron and back-end, and sometimes
my stuff was used.

But as I moved away from working on web sites to more working on
applications, kiosks, and the like the code has not really gone
straight to production.

Lately though I have been doing interactive protoypes with HTML, CSS,
and JS. And it seems that the development teams have been to some
extent reusing that code for production.

One useful thing I have found is to create a library (with design
patterns and components) which all teams can use. Much like the
Yahoo! Interface Library. I found them very useful for rapidly
creating interactive prototypes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 9:52am
yoni
2009

Richard,

My experience, in both agencies and large corporations, is that the
front-end team tends to be semi-autonomous, but organizationally closer (and
often beneath) the back-end or systems teams. Ironic, since the good ones
tend to be more philosophically aligned with Design teams.

The level of ability varies greatly, but your question was implicitly
condescending when you asked, "more than *just* HTML/CSS/Javascript."
Besides the intricacies and broad design and SEO ramifications of quality
HTML work, in today's web applications, Javascript is often the principal
tool in creating rich internet application experiences. As such, empowered
front-end developers are often more attuned to Design's wants/needs as well
as the means to deliver on them.

The only company type which I've found to take substantial advantage of this
affinity is the start-up, but even then it's a total crap-shoot.

~ yoni

Jonathan S. Knoll
email: jonathan at infinityplusone.com
web: http://infinityplusone.com/
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanknoll
twitter: @yoni

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Richard Dalton <richard at mauvyrusset.com>wrote:

> Who codes your production quality HTML/CSS/Javascript? Where in the
> organization do they sit and do they do more than just
> HTML/CSS/Javascript (ie, Java, mid-tier, etc)?
>
> I'm trying to gauge how closely connected to the Design resources
> they are, are they more aligned to Design or more to Development?
>
> - Richard
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

24 Apr 2009 - 11:21am
Adrian Howard
2005

On 24 Apr 2009, at 07:39, Richard Dalton wrote:

> Who codes your production quality HTML/CSS/Javascript? Where in the
> organization do they sit and do they do more than just
> HTML/CSS/Javascript (ie, Java, mid-tier, etc)?
>
> I'm trying to gauge how closely connected to the Design resources
> they are, are they more aligned to Design or more to Development?

Right now where I work we have a separate front-end guy who does the
detail work of taking full graphical mock ups of archetypal pages to
detail CSS/XHTML/JavaScript. We've a few non-developers who are okay
taking existing XHTML templates and adding content. We've a few
developers who are fine adding functionality/interaction to static
XHTML/CSS work - and can sort CSS/XHTML issues given sufficient time.

So I guess they're very much in the middle if you are going to draw a
line between design and development.

Other places I've worked have had the designer doing all the XHTML/CSS
- but not any coding. Others where the designer does a little bit of
mocking of the UI with Javascript that needs to be cleaned up.

Generally I've found that designers who _can_ do the CSS/XHTML work
are more effective - even if they don't do the actual work.

I worked with one guy who did some great work and had a rather
interesting technique. He jumped straight from fairly detailed
sketches to XHTML/CSS. He obviously used Photoshop et al to produce
graphical assets - but he never did a "full page" with them - just
fragments needed for the XHTML/CSS page he was working on. His
argument was basically that the constraints of the medium helped him
create.

Personally I don't think putting things on a line between design and
development is useful - but that's just me :-)

Cheers,

Adrian
--
delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh at quietstars.com

24 Apr 2009 - 11:25am
Adrian Howard
2005

On 24 Apr 2009, at 15:52, Jonathan S. Knoll wrote:
[snip]
> My experience, in both agencies and large corporations, is that the
> front-end team tends to be semi-autonomous, but organizationally
> closer (and
> often beneath) the back-end or systems teams. Ironic, since the good
> ones
> tend to be more philosophically aligned with Design teams.
[snip]

That's interesting. My experiences with the org-chart split is about
50/50 design vs systems. UK/US difference maybe?

Adrian
--
delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh at quietstars.com

24 Apr 2009 - 11:52am
Scott McDaniel
2007

> On 24 Apr 2009, at 15:52, Jonathan S. Knoll wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> My experience, in both agencies and large corporations, is that the
>> front-end team tends to be semi-autonomous, but organizationally closer
>> (and
>> often beneath) the back-end or systems teams. Ironic, since the good ones
>> tend to be more philosophically aligned with Design teams.
>
> [snip]
>
> That's interesting. My experiences with the org-chart split is about 50/50
> design vs systems. UK/US difference maybe?
>
> Adrian

Perhaps, but I've found it to be about 50 Tech/Engineering, 25/25
Design and Product/Marketing.
I think this is very much variable from company to company. Almost
all of my friends in SFO, for example, own an entire vertical of
their projects/products -- from back-end to IA to front-end. It
~blows my mind~, and some are miserable about it, but I don't get the
impression it's a Bay Area USA methodology.

Er...is it?

I didn't find the initial question condescending, speaking as someone
who came from doing
front-end development exclusively and gradually moved into more
conceptual design, as Dave
mentioned. In this case, 'just' speaks to me as 'only thing done',
much as my best friend "just does Oracle implementations."

The companies with which I worked moved in that direction
chronologically as I went
along my career path: just HTML/CSS/Javascript, to doing front-end
production code and IA/IxD, just using
HTML/CSS/JS/Flash for prototyping and presentation to not doing it all
all except as an artifact of particular programs such as iRise or
Axure. I like how various tools can help me reach certain ends, but
sometimes...I just gotta whip something together by hand, both for a
particular end and so I don't lose my edge.

Scott

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com> wrote:
>

24 Apr 2009 - 11:53am
Mark Hurd
2008

I typically do all HTML/CSS/JS and then hand the templates over to
development to integrate with their application platform.

This approach works pretty well for us since we're not doing much in
the way of static wireframes anymore. We'll use Axure if absolutely
necessary but most of the prototypes I generate are hand-coded
HTML/CSS. That way after testing and approval we've got the actual
production work 80% finished already.

Fortunately, working in a small office ("development" is one guy
and he sits right behind me!) allows us to work closely in the event
he needs to make small modifications to my templates as requirements
change or we have to make some concessions/workarounds.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 12:12pm
Scott McDaniel
2007

I'm usually the touchy one, so I can't judge harshly.

About the Bay Area, it is interesting, and I think there's a strong
case to at least be conversant in d) all of the above (as Andrei
Herasimchuk would probably Argue Strongly For), and minimally, I've
rarely encountered
anyone with an IA, UX or IxD related title who didn't at least color
in several hexes of JJG's Nine Pillars
(not to mention outside the lines and off the page). At least for me
and my path, the notion that "specialization is for insects" holds
some truth. No offense intended to you lovely specialists (nor to
insects).

Scott

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jonathan S. Knoll
<emails at jonathanknoll.com> wrote:
> I guess I'm just touchy.
>
> I've also followed that career trajectory, though I actually started with
> something more akin to über-traditional IA (building taxonomies for search),
> then made my way from back-end towards the front, now splitting time between
> front-end development and IA/IxD.
>
> I will say this, I think that the Bay Area has many more do-it-all
> developers/designers. My experiences as a dot-commer in SF actually made me
> into the generalist I am -- there was a much greater, um, respect (?) for
> the well-rounded geek. On the other hand, I've found that being a generalist
> is often scoffed at by development team managers in other places I've lived
> (including New York, and particularly at agencies). (On the other hand, it
> usually ends up earning generalists the respect of both fellow team members,
> as well as leaders of other teams. Go figure.)
>
> ~ yoni
>

24 Apr 2009 - 12:03pm
yoni
2009

I guess I'm just touchy.

I've also followed that career trajectory, though I actually started with
something more akin to über-traditional IA (building taxonomies for search),
then made my way from back-end towards the front, now splitting time between
front-end development and IA/IxD.

I will say this, I think that the Bay Area has many more do-it-all
developers/designers. My experiences as a dot-commer in SF actually made me
into the generalist I am -- there was a much greater, um, respect (?) for
the well-rounded geek. On the other hand, I've found that being a generalist
is often scoffed at by development team managers in other places I've lived
(including New York, and particularly at agencies). (On the other hand, it
usually ends up earning generalists the respect of both fellow team members,
as well as leaders of other teams. Go figure.)

~ yoni

Jonathan S. Knoll
email: jonathan at infinityplusone.com
web: http://infinityplusone.com/
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanknoll
twitter: @yoni

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Scott McDaniel <scott at scottopic.com>wrote:

> > On 24 Apr 2009, at 15:52, Jonathan S. Knoll wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> My experience, in both agencies and large corporations, is that the
> >> front-end team tends to be semi-autonomous, but organizationally closer
> >> (and
> >> often beneath) the back-end or systems teams. Ironic, since the good
> ones
> >> tend to be more philosophically aligned with Design teams.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > That's interesting. My experiences with the org-chart split is about
> 50/50
> > design vs systems. UK/US difference maybe?
> >
> > Adrian
>
> Perhaps, but I've found it to be about 50 Tech/Engineering, 25/25
> Design and Product/Marketing.
> I think this is very much variable from company to company. Almost
> all of my friends in SFO, for example, own an entire vertical of
> their projects/products -- from back-end to IA to front-end. It
> ~blows my mind~, and some are miserable about it, but I don't get the
> impression it's a Bay Area USA methodology.
>
> Er...is it?
>
> I didn't find the initial question condescending, speaking as someone
> who came from doing
> front-end development exclusively and gradually moved into more
> conceptual design, as Dave
> mentioned. In this case, 'just' speaks to me as 'only thing done',
> much as my best friend "just does Oracle implementations."
>
> The companies with which I worked moved in that direction
> chronologically as I went
> along my career path: just HTML/CSS/Javascript, to doing front-end
> production code and IA/IxD, just using
> HTML/CSS/JS/Flash for prototyping and presentation to not doing it all
> all except as an artifact of particular programs such as iRise or
> Axure. I like how various tools can help me reach certain ends, but
> sometimes...I just gotta whip something together by hand, both for a
> particular end and so I don't lose my edge.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
> wrote:
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

24 Apr 2009 - 1:09pm
Gilberto Medrano
2008

I get to write the html/css code pretty often in the case of web apps.
Some times we use frameworks like Eclipse or custom Java apps, and
time constrains make it hard for me to keep up the learning effort.

However, I keep myself involved during the implementation iteration
as a UI "quality assurance" to ensure that both visuals and
interactions are implemented as designed (or better). Engineers tend
to neglect the presentation layer, or at least they are less
detail-oriented there.

@Adrian Howard:
"the constraints of the medium helped him create"

This is the most refreshing line I have read lately in the Forum.
Design is about solving problems for a particular audience, in a
particular context, using a particular technology. Regardless of who
ends up writing the actual code, it is vital for the designer to
gradually learn the constrains (and opportunities) of the technology
in which her design is going to be implemented.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 2:27pm
Jason Pamental
2008

I think that we've probably all seen situations all across the
spectrum - but ideally I think that HTML/CSS creation and prototyping
belong earlier in the process, so that interative design can take
place and as mentioned above, when it's time to implement the system
(theming in Drupal, .aspx in .NET, whatever) it's generally MUCH
simpler to do - and you get the benefit of testing/tweaking/designing
around real, working HTML.

Of course, if it's a really good department/shop then the team of
IA/UX/Visual Design/HTML/CSS/Development is all working together with
a really good, balanced lead, right? ;)

Cheers everyone, and happy Friday-

Jason

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 3:24pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

Personally, I consider this to be a poor approach, as it will tend to
limit your thinking about a solution to what you know is
implementable. I prefer to keep implementation in the back of my mind
while designing the solution. I will quite often have to make some
compromises when I get to implementation, but it pushes me to learn
more as I try to implement. The UIs that have resulted from this
process are better than they would have been had I limited my
creativity, and I am more capable. It's a win-win.

Best,
Jack

On Apr 24, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Gilberto Medrano wrote:

> @Adrian Howard:
> "the constraints of the medium helped him create"
>
> This is the most refreshing line I have read lately in the Forum.

Jack L. Moffett
Senior Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

Design is like California.
No one is born there.

-Dick Buchanan

24 Apr 2009 - 3:31pm
Angel Marquez
2008

>>I will say this, I think that the Bay Area has many more do-it-all
developers/designers. My experiences as a dot-commer in SF actually made me
into the generalist I am -- there was a much greater, um, respect (?) for
the well-rounded geek
Being originally from the Bay I 100% agree. Southern California, where I am
currently located, seems to have a lot more separation between and amongst
teams. It is interesting to see how the public culture seeps into the
corporate.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Jonathan S. Knoll <
emails at jonathanknoll.com> wrote:

> I guess I'm just touchy.
>
> I've also followed that career trajectory, though I actually started with
> something more akin to über-traditional IA (building taxonomies for
> search),
> then made my way from back-end towards the front, now splitting time
> between
> front-end development and IA/IxD.
>
> I will say this, I think that the Bay Area has many more do-it-all
> developers/designers. My experiences as a dot-commer in SF actually made me
> into the generalist I am -- there was a much greater, um, respect (?) for
> the well-rounded geek. On the other hand, I've found that being a
> generalist
> is often scoffed at by development team managers in other places I've lived
> (including New York, and particularly at agencies). (On the other hand, it
> usually ends up earning generalists the respect of both fellow team
> members,
> as well as leaders of other teams. Go figure.)
>
> ~ yoni
>
>
> Jonathan S. Knoll
> email: jonathan at infinityplusone.com
> web: http://infinityplusone.com/
> linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanknoll
> twitter: @yoni
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Scott McDaniel <scott at scottopic.com
> >wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Apr 2009, at 15:52, Jonathan S. Knoll wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> My experience, in both agencies and large corporations, is that the
> > >> front-end team tends to be semi-autonomous, but organizationally
> closer
> > >> (and
> > >> often beneath) the back-end or systems teams. Ironic, since the good
> > ones
> > >> tend to be more philosophically aligned with Design teams.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > That's interesting. My experiences with the org-chart split is about
> > 50/50
> > > design vs systems. UK/US difference maybe?
> > >
> > > Adrian
> >
> > Perhaps, but I've found it to be about 50 Tech/Engineering, 25/25
> > Design and Product/Marketing.
> > I think this is very much variable from company to company. Almost
> > all of my friends in SFO, for example, own an entire vertical of
> > their projects/products -- from back-end to IA to front-end. It
> > ~blows my mind~, and some are miserable about it, but I don't get the
> > impression it's a Bay Area USA methodology.
> >
> > Er...is it?
> >
> > I didn't find the initial question condescending, speaking as someone
> > who came from doing
> > front-end development exclusively and gradually moved into more
> > conceptual design, as Dave
> > mentioned. In this case, 'just' speaks to me as 'only thing done',
> > much as my best friend "just does Oracle implementations."
> >
> > The companies with which I worked moved in that direction
> > chronologically as I went
> > along my career path: just HTML/CSS/Javascript, to doing front-end
> > production code and IA/IxD, just using
> > HTML/CSS/JS/Flash for prototyping and presentation to not doing it all
> > all except as an artifact of particular programs such as iRise or
> > Axure. I like how various tools can help me reach certain ends, but
> > sometimes...I just gotta whip something together by hand, both for a
> > particular end and so I don't lose my edge.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

24 Apr 2009 - 3:39pm
Adrian Howard
2005

On 24 Apr 2009, at 17:52, Scott McDaniel wrote:

> Almost
> all of my friends in SFO, for example, own an entire vertical of
> their projects/products -- from back-end to IA to front-end. It
> ~blows my mind~, and some are miserable about it, but I don't get the
> impression it's a Bay Area USA methodology.

How can anybody be miserable about getting to play with an entire
vertical?

<jealous>

Adrian

--
delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh at quietstars.com

24 Apr 2009 - 3:58pm
Scott McDaniel
2007

The few I know of this mindset are also of the Deep Java sort. They create some
fantastic applications that do complex functions in a way I couldn't
comprehend without
a Cray and a tank of nitrous oxide. Some folks just love that, and
even if intellectually
understanding the role and purpose of UX, don't feel it in their
domain of skill and appreciation.

I think.

Scott

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com> wrote:
>
> On 24 Apr 2009, at 17:52, Scott McDaniel wrote:
>
>> Almost
>> all of my friends in SFO, for example, own an  entire vertical of
>> their projects/products -- from back-end to IA to front-end.  It
>> ~blows my mind~, and some are miserable about it, but I don't get the
>> impression it's a Bay Area USA methodology.
>
>
> How can anybody be miserable about getting to play with an entire vertical?
>
> <jealous>
>
> Adrian
>
> --
> delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adrianh at quietstars.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

24 Apr 2009 - 4:03pm
Adrian Howard
2005

On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:24, Jack Moffett wrote:

> Personally, I consider this to be a poor approach, as it will tend
> to limit your thinking about a solution to what you know is
> implementable. I prefer to keep implementation in the back of my
> mind while designing the solution. I will quite often have to make
> some compromises when I get to implementation, but it pushes me to
> learn more as I try to implement. The UIs that have resulted from
> this process are better than they would have been had I limited my
> creativity, and I am more capable. It's a win-win.
[snip]

The flip side argument to that is if you start outside the box and
compromise you end up with something that's... well... a compromise.
If you start within the box and push out to the edge of the envelope
as hard as you can you're always guaranteed to get something that
works and works well. You don't sit there and go "I can't do that" -
you sit there and go "How can I do that?" - It's a win-win.

Not that I've not seen folk your way well too - the usual "it
depends" :-)

I find working within constraints - even arbitrarily set ones - means
I work harder. It's more of a challenge - and challenges always get my
creative juices going. In fact, setting arbitrary constraints is one
of my personal tricks to get myself thinking about a problem in a
different way. Telling myself "I have to do this in half the number of
pages" can really get me to look at a problem in a different way. Even
if I fail.

Cheers,

Adrian

24 Apr 2009 - 4:34pm
Todd Warfel
2003

On Apr 24, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:

> The flip side argument to that is if you start outside the box and
> compromise you end up with something that's... well... a compromise.

We start all of our designs sketching w/pencil or pen and paper. This
allows us to be uninhibited and explore new models, allows us to push
past what the environment might allow for. Then, because the stuff we
typically come up with is beyond what's possible, we try and figure
out how in the hell we're going to make it happen.

Most of the time, we figure out. We have to push whatever coding
environment we're working in to new areas of exploration, or bend
things, or possibly break them, but most of the time we can get it
done. Now, most of the time the engineering team only implements part
of it, but that was even the case when we didn't push designs. So,
we're still better off than before.

And yes, if we can't figure it out, then we compromise.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

24 Apr 2009 - 7:42pm
Adrian Howard
2005

On 24 Apr 2009, at 22:34, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
[snip]
> We start all of our designs sketching w/pencil or pen and paper.
> This allows us to be uninhibited and explore new models, allows us
> to push past what the environment might allow for. Then, because the
> stuff we typically come up with is beyond what's possible, we try
> and figure out how in the hell we're going to make it happen.
>
> Most of the time, we figure out. We have to push whatever coding
> environment we're working in to new areas of exploration, or bend
> things, or possibly break them, but most of the time we can get it
> done. Now, most of the time the engineering team only implements
> part of it, but that was even the case when we didn't push designs.
> So, we're still better off than before.
[snip]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's the "pushing" that's
needed. Whether you're pushing against the constraints of the medium
from the outside or the inside - you need to push.

Cheers,

Adrian

24 Apr 2009 - 8:56pm
Todd Warfel
2003

Absolutely agree.

On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's the "pushing" that's
> needed. Whether you're pushing against the constraints of the medium
> from the outside or the inside - you need to push.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

24 Apr 2009 - 3:59pm
sgmitch
2008

I work at a very large web company with a very formalized
engineering-centric org which owns (among other things) the
production HTML/CSS/JS. I've been very lucky to work very closely
with our front-end devs. We don't sit near each other normally, but
as each project hits the heavy-coding phase(s), we squat together in
a conference room or hop cubes to make sure we can collaborate
easily.

The relationships between designers and front-end developers varies
greatly by group though, and just yesterday I heard that some other
engineers were appalled that ours let designers even cut and optimize
graphics!

I used to be a front-end dev in a previous life. While I generally
agree with Jack and prefer to forget constraints while initially
designing, I have found the greatest success working as closely as
possible with developers. And a little bit of common ground and
understanding only helps make the communication easier.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

24 Apr 2009 - 4:00pm
Gilberto Medrano
2008

"it will tend to limit your thinking about a solution to what you
know is implementable"

I agree with you partially. During the ideation (or
conceptualization) stage you want to generate ideas without focusing
much on technical concerns. But eventually those constrains should
be integrated and help shape the concept you are envisioning.

When I see the work of Calatrava (he is both architect and civil
engineer) or Gehry in Architecture I know that technical knowledge
does not necessary limit creativity, the other way around, it can
help you come up with viable solutions and push for innovation. You
may not like their designs, you may do; both it's easy to agree that
they push the envelop for drafting technologies construction
techniques (design evolving other - technical - fields)

I think UI design has a long way to mature at the level Architecture
or Industrial design are (process-wise); but the groundbreaking will
come from those able to think outside the designer-programmer bipolar
paradigm.

Cheers,

Gilberto

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

25 Apr 2009 - 4:55am
Angel Marquez
2008

>>I think UI design has a long way to mature at the level Architecture or
Industrial design are (process-wise);Interesting. I just had lunch with a
girl that was in a class I just took and she showed me the home page of
an acquaintances work web site. The homepage touted these renaissance images
of like the old republic and what not. Anyways, I said I've been seeing this
pop up more frequently. I said I love that period and she mentioned that it
was then and this is now. I had to present the fact that during that time
period color theory & music theory were established and used the example
that we still adhere to these systems that suite completely different mind
sets. We can have heavy metal or folk, graffiti or daffodils; but, you can
not deny the fact they both adhere to the same system that allows beautiful
contrast and complements.

I think dev teams need a similar system that allows diversity without
compensating individuality.

Two cents..

goodnight

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Gilberto Medrano <gmedrano at gmail.com>wrote:

> "it will tend to limit your thinking about a solution to what you
> know is implementable"
>
> I agree with you partially. During the ideation (or
> conceptualization) stage you want to generate ideas without focusing
> much on technical concerns. But eventually those constrains should
> be integrated and help shape the concept you are envisioning.
>
> When I see the work of Calatrava (he is both architect and civil
> engineer) or Gehry in Architecture I know that technical knowledge
> does not necessary limit creativity, the other way around, it can
> help you come up with viable solutions and push for innovation. You
> may not like their designs, you may do; both it's easy to agree that
> they push the envelop for drafting technologies construction
> techniques (design evolving other - technical - fields)
>
> I think UI design has a long way to mature at the level Architecture
> or Industrial design are (process-wise); but the groundbreaking will
> come from those able to think outside the designer-programmer bipolar
> paradigm.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gilberto
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Apr 2009 - 2:36pm
John Vaughan - ...
2004

I believe that "Dirt under the fingernails" is a selling point, tho many
clients have some difficulty reconciling that you might have both technical
expertise AND strategic or "big picture" skills.

Still, the newly-lean economy may be more receptive to a UxP designer with
tractionable tech skills...

I try to make the "efficiency" and "good process" arguments for it.

IMHO:

UxP Owns HTML http://www.jcvtcs.com/-ideas/UxpOwnsHtml.html

Going Native http://www.jcvtcs.com/-ideas/going-native.html

UxP Deliverables: The DemoSite
http://www.jcvtcs.com/-docs/demo-site.html

John

27 Apr 2009 - 4:53pm
gretchen anderson
2005

I don't work on much web stuff, so I'll jump in with this to stir the
pot:

I get a "professional" to write code for me. Embedded interfaces are
generally more difficult for the layman to produce, but also, I want
someone who knows code in and out to write code. ESPECIALLY production
code. Always thought it strange that Google wanted IxDs to code.

Maybe if you're just doing a simple web site, the designer and coder can
be one, but then, those jobs aren't really the core of IxD anyway.

If I was limited to what I could code (even using toolkits like Flex, et
al.) my interactions would be pedestrian, unimaginative, and necessarily
limited by my knowing I had to deliver it in the end.

And, finally, I work at a consultancy and ownership over the code by my
client is the single biggest contributor to the success of the
end-product I've seen in my 15 years. Hands down. So this might be moot
for "in-house" design/development.

My $.02, Gretchen

27 Apr 2009 - 5:26pm
Angel Marquez
2008

>>Always thought it strange that Google wanted IxDs to code.

The IxDs in a sense are writing the
psuedocode<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocode>just like a tester
writes bugs hopefully in a format that can quickly be
transposed into the expected result. I think if you have to overly reformat
either roles deliverable to make working sense the role is expendable and
could be done by the receiving party just as well.

1 cent

27 Apr 2009 - 9:16pm
DampeS8N
2008

People still code this stuff by hand?

Ok, in the interest of full disclosure. Right now I am the one doing
this. But that makes sense, as I am a Web Developer by title.

I'm taking steps to remove the need for html/js/css hand-code in the
future. You heard it here first. Keep an eye out for it. Bout time
someone forced css and js into a proper MVC architecture.

Ok. I'll switch off programmer mode.

What? What is this HTML? And... JS? Is that some kind of flower?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41475

28 Apr 2009 - 1:49pm
Joel Eden
2006

Last week, during a talk Bill Buxton gave in New Jersey, he talked
about how Gehry would have a structural engineer (or similar) work
beside him and go through a process of compromise...more like
co-evolution than compromise, really. He said Gehry would have an idea
put in form (whatever he used for building mockups), and the engineer
would say things like "it won't hold that way, what about something
like this..." and Gehry would sometimes get good ideas and go off of
what the engineer recommended to try.

I thought this was really interesting, because many times we talk
about the lone designer, architect, etc, and the constraints of the
materials, but this was a nice example of collaboration through the
materials between Gehry and the engineer. It's also rare to get inside
knowledge on how these greats design (and compromise).

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Gilberto Medrano <gmedrano at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I see the work of Calatrava (he is both architect and civil
> engineer) or Gehry in Architecture I know that technical knowledge
> does not necessary limit creativity, the other way around, it can
> help you come up with viable solutions and push for innovation.  You
> may not like their designs, you may do; both it's easy to agree that
> they push the envelop for drafting technologies construction
> techniques (design evolving other - technical - fields)

28 Apr 2009 - 7:53am
Danny Hope
2008

2009/4/24 Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>:
> I worked with one guy who did some great work and had a rather interesting
> technique. He jumped straight from fairly detailed sketches to XHTML/CSS. He
> obviously used Photoshop et al to produce graphical assets - but he never
> did a "full page" with them - just fragments needed for the XHTML/CSS page
> he was working on. His argument was basically that the constraints of the
> medium helped him create.

I am a fan of this technique.

I often go from paper/stickies to HTML. One cavaet: I don't care about
standards at this stage and will happily use tables etc to quickly get
a result.

Sometimes I get a coder to knock-up a bit of Javascript if I need to
demonstrate certain interactions. I'm planning to get my head around
jQuery in order to remove this dependancy though.

I then pass this to a front-end coder (XHTML/CSS/JS).

I don't expect my code to ever published. One exception to this is the
calss names I have chosen, which are human readable, semantically rich
and enter into a shared product vocabulary between all stakeholders.

To speed things up I have a small set of simple snippets which make
HTML prototyping more efficient.

I feel a blog post coming on :)

--
Danny Hope
User Experience Consultant, Brighton (UK)
07595 226 792
@yandle

Syndicate content Get the feed