
Web Design is Product Design - joshuacc
http://andyrutledge.com/web-design-is-product-design.php
======
karjaluoto
One day Andy figured something out: if you say bold, polarizing things, you
can get a lot of people talking.

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.

~~~
tedkimble
>> I hire designers, developers, and strategists who work well together.

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._

~~~
karjaluoto
No, you're incorrect.

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/>

~~~
tedkimble
I think we're likely on the same page. But your original post made me think
differently, particularly this line:

>> 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.

~~~
karjaluoto
I lot of people share that opinion; nevertheless, I disagree with it.

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.

~~~
tedkimble
Thanks for the nice counter-argument. I think you're probably right in
practice.

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.

------
marcin
As much as I'd always rather have a designer that does HTML on the team (for
the sake of quick and agile adaptation), vs someone doing just photoshop, I
believe that a good analogy would be architecture. Architects have fairly good
understanding of specifics of various materials, their performance as well as
associated costs. Still all projects are always reviewed by a 'construction
engineer' who converts the architectural vision to workable implementation
(that is then on passed to production teams). Taking that example to the
online world - designers should understand all of the mechanisms that they
will use in the design, and communicate their vision to someone that will
implement it. They do not need to actually code it, because following that
logic - being a product manager for LinkFindr (and CEO, and business person
etc..) I should never allow any designer to spoil my vision with her artistic
view, and just storify, mockup, PSD and then code it myself. It takes trust
and good communication to split up work in the team, but as Ford proved a
couple years ago - when you're running at scale, there is no other way.

------
biaxident
Totally agree, when I create a design I want to actually create it myself.
Handing it off to someone else who hasn't designed it always manages to miss
important elements of the design.

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.

------
wccrawford
It's called specialization. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

~~~
studiofellow
It's not specialization. It's laziness. Actually, you could even call lacking
one of the most basic requisite skills of the trade incompetence.

~~~
tedkimble
But that's the problem. There's a disconnect between the term "web designer"
and the skills of the trade.

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)

~~~
studiofellow
Exactly. Many become designers just because they want to make cool-looking
things, not realizing there is much more involved. Major
disconnect/misconceptions about what web design entails. (Poor design
education doesn't help.)

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.

------
GBKS
Then Graphic Design is product design as well.

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.

------
tedkimble
But _why_ must designers be able to code markup and css; surely a PSD mockup
will suffice, correct?

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.

~~~
wdewind
There is essentially no other medium for which this demand is made. Appliance
design, car design etc. etc. almost no other product oriented design field
requires the designer to fully understand the medium. Obviously it is helpful,
but case in point, the iPhone was designed by people who did not code.

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.

~~~
tedkimble
>> There is essentially no other medium for which this demand is made.

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.

~~~
wdewind
The contention is in the definition of the word "know." Jony Ive _knows_ glass
in the sense of the way a particular type of glass reflects sunlight, or feels
(ie: to the extent that it solves a particular problem for him), but he
absolutely does not know or care how that piece of glass is manufactured. The
difference for a designer between knowing when to use a button and when to use
a link does not depend on them knowing <a href=""> vs. <input type="button />.

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.

------
Pheter
To produce a good design, one must have a solid understanding of what it is
that they are designing for and the medium that they are working with.

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.

------
antidaily
How many times does this need to be said?

~~~
earnubs
Hang around long enough and you'll find that very little is new under the sun.

~~~
antidaily
Seriously, I feel like I read this on Signal vs. Noise in like 2006.

~~~
maren
:)

------
wafir
I would be insulted but his CSS is all jacked up when I look at it on my
screen.

