

"I already have wireframes, I just need you to code it" - milang
http://www.zeusriver.com/blog/2012/11/i-already-have-wireframes-i-just-need-you-to-code-it/

======
bennyg
For me, I love every single part of creation of software. From dreaming up its
function and laying it down elegantly in code, to designing the user
interface, the logo and making everything smooth. Then looking at it -
deciding it's shit - and iterating the whole thing again. It's a creative
process and I love every bit of it.

When people come to me with ideas or wireframes it takes away from that
creative process by a huge factor for me, which in turn makes me not want to
take a client. I love seeing the idea in my head and having it all click, that
catalyst of motion needed to take it from idea to execution. I love it. People
giving me ideas, deadlines, precise functions and that the logo has to be
"right there" just kill stuff for me. I can't do it and be happy, so I won't
do it.

------
mnicole
If this post was more straight-to-the-point, I would have been in agreement
with it. The problem with the metaphors here is that there are architects that
are also good interior designers, just as there are developers who can
implement good design. There's also resources for people that want to design
their own house but need to make sure all of their bases are covered.

I would have phrased it more like: designers with project ideas are great, but
their contribution is going to need be a lot more than just providing some
PSDs and an image-only concept website. A big reason why I argue that people
that design for web but don't code aren't really web designers (something I
understandably get crap for) is because you need to understand the
possibilities as well as the limitations if you plan on spending your time
creating something truly worthwhile. Blog posts alone aren't going to keep you
afloat on the state-of-the-industry, and can do more harm than good (i.e. the
designer that says "I know we can do this because there's a jQuery plugin for
it!" without understanding how it could impact existing code). The designer
also needs to be able to answer questions that their mockups don't provide and
be able to back up reasons why they made those decisions. You need to be able
to iterate throughout the development process when something doesn't work as
planned and do so alongside your developer, not just hope you're going to be
able to nab one that is willing to both do the heavy-lifting on the front- and
the back-end for you so long as you provide hugs and high-fives.

Anyone can come up with a static image of their dream app based on re-
imagining favorite features from others like it. I just worry that if every
designer with an idea thinks they deserve a pocket-programmer, we're going to
end up with a lot more half-baked apps and services than we already have and a
lot of unhappy developers who didn't know what they were getting themselves
into. Something something everyone should learn to code.

------
psweber
This post is mixing metaphors a lot. Software developer as architect,
electrician, plumber and building code expert. I don't see anything about
understanding and meeting the needs of people that actually use the final,
functioning system. That is what a structural architect does.

I know we have a mess of terms on the digital side. Lots of people with
different specialties are trying to claim the architect title. People tend to
say they are "architecting" the design of the backend system. Aren't they
really "engineering" it? Maybe it doesn't really matter. Debating the meaning
of "architect" is about as much fun as debating the real meaning of "design."

------
saym
I think the answer to both the architectural example and the software
comparison is more education. The only way to stop the onslaught of poor
interaction is if the client better understands the development process.

