Re: [IxDA] Do you actually possess "design" skills
The term designer has and always contained the visual aspect as well. Sure you can understand and mimic the role of the designer, but if you do not possess any of the artistic abilities of a designer, can you really call yourself a designer without having to fake your skills somewhere down the line? It's like a cook who can mix, chop, cut, slice, but hasn't got any sense of taste or better yet, has no trained presentational skills so everything looks like baby food.
Sure, you can be an artist who borrows or steals, but can you be a true artist? So people can call themselves whatever they want. But for non-designers to call themselves designers means, they're not being real to themselves. How long can you live the lie? So they burrow and hide behind the designer's aspects where they cannot be criticized. You're a scientist.
If you want to be a scientist, then call yourself a scientist and research patterns. The difference between someone just out of art school vs 15 years experience is that the student's mind is pure of heart. What truly makes one employed vs the other is not skill set or experience, but money. What the difference between bullshit and trying to bullshit a bullshit artist? You probably went to a computer science school, so you should call your self a scientist, not a designer.
Now if you were a UI designer before the GUI, then I could understand that you need not possess any drawing skills or understand color and lighting from photography. But the world has changed since. It's like an architect who can't draw or understand a blueprint. Are you seriously going to call yourself a designer without having any formal art school education? Or possession of their skills.
Richard Carson President of the United States ;)
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"Re: [IxDA] Do you actually possess "design" skills\""){kind=small}
Get the feed
Comments
Doug Bowman left google for the same reasons you put forth. Very valid reasons on both sides of the argument as I see it.
I like to get the job done, you have principles. We both take pride in our work in different ways.
With that said I would express a degree of caution to people who continued to take a principled stances in product development. There's definitely a trait in artists to stand true to the principles and not compromise. On the one hand your portfolio is probably full of the finest examples of UI design principles on the other hand it's not unheard of for the artist to be difficult to work with
Would anyone want to work with http://www.diegomonetti.com/
/pauric
Hey President Carson
You do understand that this is a discussion in the Interaction Design Association forum right?
Most of the discussions are intended towards <strong>Design of Interaction</strong>, I have respect for the things you are saying. I just do not believe that a one person alone can be so intolerant towards people without <strong>artistic design</strong> skills. What about Don Norman and Jacob Nielsen Work, that is not design either?
Kind Regards
Iaax Page
Huh? Jacob doesn't have a designer's bone in his body and I've never heard him pretend otherwise. You only have to look at his site. And that is why, though he understands usability his site ultimately is a failure... its not designed.
And to you Pres Carson -- again you define 'Designer' way too narrowly. How about a Sound Designer? A music composer? Thinking only visually limits you. Open your minds. Think in terms of temporal-spatial design of the entire user experience.
Hey Jon,
I do not like Jacob's site from the aesthetics point of view. Wouldn't consider it a failure either. Cause it works.
Norman may not have a designer's bone in his body either. An yet he talks about it on The Design of Every Day Things and The Design of Future Things books, his videos and in his website. Although probably I should have specified that I was talking about nngroup.com where Nielsen, Norman and Tognazzini provide the world with Strategies to enhance the user experience.
I like the take you offer in your last comment where you ask people to think in terms of temporal-spatial design, that kind of comments provide perspective and should, if the reader doesn't behave like a five year old, widen his understanding.
In an unrelated matter are you on twitter, couldn't find you there and I will really like to follow you there.
Kind Regards.
Iaax Page
According to his biography here at: http://www.useit.com/jakob/ He has been called a king, a guru, smartest person on the web, top 10 mind in small business, expert on user-friendly design, czar...... but no one called him a "Designer".
Don Norman is currently is a consultant, a writer, a speaker, a teacher, but not sure if he considers himself a designer anymore. Both get thumbs up to brilliance. But truthfully I don't know if they have an art background or not. You would probably be able to tell me.
I don't think anyone should be intolerant towards anyone, whether you have or haven't got the chops to be a designer, but there is a level of reality and truth. Should a designer possess artistic skills? Are you an art/ design historian, researcher, psychologist, writer, engineer, teacher, design critic or a designer?
That word isn't someone you put at the end of your industry. It's someone you should wear proudly if you choose to use it.
On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:29 PM, iaaxpage wrote:
> Hey President Carson > > You do understand that this is a discussion in the Interaction Design Association forum right? > > Most of the discussions are intended towards Design of Interaction, I have respect for the things you are saying. I just do not believe that a one person alone can be so intolerant towards people without artistic design skills. What about Don Norman and Jacob Nielsen Work, that is not design either? > > Kind Regards > > Iaax Page > >
As an interactive art director who has moved more and more into UX design, I am interested in this topic. I'm not really sure why you are so proprietorial of the word "designer" though. I have never agreed with the notion that information architects, ux designers, interaction designers, whatever you call yourself...create the structure (ala wireframes with a distinct layout) and hand off to a visual designer to "skin". I don't believe interaction design and visual design are at all separate.
If you are involved in communication design and designing experiences, it behooves you to understand branding and how visual design guides a user through a site or application (or a store!). You also need to understand mental models and patterns in order to design an effective solution. It doesn't mean we can be experts in all areas (and that is what project teams are for, no?) but if you don't have a firm grasp on all these parts and how integral they are to your ideas and solutions, you have bigger problems than whether to call yourself a designer or not.
Cheers,
Deanna
I'm surprised no one has brought up Christopher Alexander in this thread yet. In "The Timeless Way of Building", he describes design in extremely broad terms - a timeless quality that applies to any artifact. In fact, it was an "architecture" book that was required reading as part of my PhD curriculum.
Even Webster's definition offers some interesting insights:
Both offer pretty broad definitions
Hmmm, Are you discussing what a designer is? I can tell you what it is not, it's not necessarily someone who has artistic abilities. Though they need to be creative to find solutions.
Do you actually possess "design" skills? That is the question, right? (I'm not sure what the quotes are meant to signify in the inquiry).
Designer, by definition is a planner, strategist, problem solver, etc. They construct understanding of content, systems, purpose, function etc. By this, we can say that Jakob Nielson is a designer - A Usability Designer, as he builds systems of understanding in interactivity. his aesthetic tastes/abilities, not really high up there, we can all agree.
Many of the comments here seems a little defensive in nature. I think part of that might be the misunderstanding of what a "designer" is and the strong hold some have to it being aesthetic.
I for one don't really care what I'm called as long as I get to do what I do, and yes I have the skills.
my view : As a "designer", you do need to have a strong sense of beauty.
You may not need to be a master in drawing, but at least you are able to draw/to sketch.
You may not need to be an artist, but at least you feel happy when creating any form of artwork, or even just standing in a gallery.
I have a background in telecom, ASIC and software engineering. While I spend ( or maybe invest) a lot of energy in Interaction Design. Because I do know I just love the "design". I know this because I just love painting, photographing, digital arts and creating beautiful/cool web pages. And literature. ---- while I am now doing engineering.
the Best "))
, Euccas
Does it really matter whether some people who can't draw call themselves designers or not? Some people who can't draw but have excellent design aesthetic, if it works for them, then good for them! There are always good and bad designers, just like engineers and scientists. I have seen all kinds of people call themselves "designers", but in the end, it's their works that shows how good of a designer they are.
It seems to me that some designers don't want the value of being an "designer" diluted by these "other folks".
-Sara
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, loka99c <loka99c@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard Bill Buxton in person say he's not good at drawing, but I bet we'd all say he's a great designer.
My own two cents tacked on to what others have said is: It's seems too easy to forget (and hard to learn) that aesthetics are not just about visual aesthetics. I forgot where, but probably on this list a while back, someone discussed a nice definition of aesthetics as all perception through the senses, including things like:
visual (of course) physical/touch sense of smell sense of rhythm sense of humor and so on...
I think the sense of rhythm is key for interaction design, because interactions happen over time, and I still have yet to see a good answer to Buxton's challenge he always talks about:
To me, a designer is someone that can give some good answers to that challenge, not show me a pretty mockup.
Joel
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM, loka99c wrote: > my view : As a "designer", you do need to have a strong sense of beauty. > > You may not need to be a master in drawing, but at least you are able to > draw/to sketch. > You may not need to be an artist, but at least you feel happy when creating > any form of artwork, or even just standing in a gallery. > > I have a background in telecom, ASIC and software engineering. While I spend > ( or maybe invest) a lot of energy in Interaction Design. Because I do know > I just love the "design". I know this because I just love painting, > photographing, digital arts and creating beautiful/cool web pages. And > literature. ---- while I am now doing engineering. > > the Best ")) > , Euccas > >
Personally? I don't care too much if someone who cannot draw "well" (and consider what each of us considers is an ability to draw/sketch/etc, anyway) calls him/herself a designer... particularly if he or she is capable of producing - whether by leadership of vision or physical production skills - a final design of whatever form or fashion is required. I think design starts in the head and if one is lucky enough to possess the motor skills to articulate an idea "on paper" then all the more to them.
Now, I do think that people who can articulate an idea via sketching and other related hand-skills may be more effective in seeing through their ideas; however, I do not think analog - hand - skills are necessary to be a designer. Perhaps I am biased as I don't consider myself all that adept in drawing (though I'm better than the average person) yet put me in front of Photoshop or other such tools and I can get my ideas out wonderfully better, faster, and clearer.
Also, I wanted to mention that this is the same argument as "what constitutes art?" There are many people who think of art very broadly, accepting all the oddball paintings, sculpture, performance, etc. as "art" simply because... And, there are those who define art very specifically, basing their determination on one's own notion of beauty, which, is subjective. So, I don't think it's possible for us to stake a claim as to who is a designer and who isn't.
Again, personally, I'm not put off by someone who can't draw or paint or whatever calling themself a designer if in fact they can articulate their vision in a clear, effective, and efficient manner. To me, that is the sign of a designer, someone who can concoct a graceful solution.