*** From the Archives ***

This article is from February 8, 2000, and is no longer current.

Web Designers Debate Their Role

10

BOSTON — New terminology is needed to describe the role designers play in Web site development agreed a panel of designers and technologists at Seybold Seminars. Spurred by a debate over the convergence of design and programming, the proposal didn’t generate any new terms – yet.
“As Web teams grow up, we realize that ‘designer’ isn’t enough,” said Doug Gray, art director at Banta Integrated Media. Designers are expected to know not only two-dimensional design but three-dimensional design that encompasses interface design, usability, and navigation.
The question running through the panel discussion centered on the extent to which designers need to know engineering and vice versa. Robert Raines, vice president and creative director of America Online asserted that designers need to keep focussed on their craft. While it benefits them to understand the limits technology imposes on them, there is no need to understand the nuances.
“The line between the technical and creative disciplines needs to be there,” Raines said.
Aaron Oppenheimer, design lead at Boston-based Art Technology Group, disagreed. “We need to remove barriers between designers and developers. Designers and coders need to talk every step of the way,” he said. The best web sites, he said are those where teams take the effort to understand each other’s worlds. “Graphic designers need to understand engineering limitations, and engineers need to understand why color and typography are so important.”
Lisa Beaudoin, art director of America Online, agreed. “Designers are beholden to coders and programmers to realize their vision,” she said. “Designers need to forecast potential usability as part of their complete creative vision.”
The trend is to blend job descriptions on Web development teams, as engineers tackle usability issues and designers refine code in HTML – not often with great results. The solution, the panel agreed, comes back to human, not software, interaction. “You need to develop a level of respect between teams,” said Audrey Witters, director of engineering at iSyndicate.
“Engineers believe they can design a user interface when they have little understanding of the design process, and designers believe they can program Web sites when their knowledge of engineering is limited.”
Tom Hale, VP of marketing for Macromedia, asserted that as Web site development matures, those people who have knowledge of both design and programming will be desirable in a fast-moving employment market.
But looking ahead, Witters said she thinks content, design and engineering become segmented as the demand for “user-relevant” design increases. “The separation trend will be led by wireless devices such as PalmPilots and cellular phones,” she said. When the user experience is determined by the screen size of a cellular phone and by push-button navigation, design will undergo yet another transformation.
 

  • anonymous says:

    Usability and Information Architecture are the most important factors in determining the success of a site design.

    With information-heavy or purposeful sites, a design cannot be successful if the principles of these two disciplines are not employed–who cares if it looks good if it doesn’t give you what you need? So IMHO, to be a well-rounded designer, you MUST follow these principles.

    Visual design, usability, and information architecture together, are a “brainful” to master. Quality increases when a designer uses all of these skills in producing a site. So why dilute a designer’s repertoire by adding programming skills to the mix? Designing is “technical” in itself.

    Programming sounds like a great “value-add” for designers and it doesn’t hurt to have “some” experience in this field, but as demand forces us to provide specialized content and experiences to retain users, you’ll need to employ people who “focus” on design/usability/IA to develop the best experience possible.

    Thus, I would build a team that separates programming from design and depend on those people to do their job well, rather than creating a team of hybrids who have to stay on top of multiple disciplines, again diluting their skillsets.

    To sum up, with usability and info. architecture being necessary factors in overall site design, less is more–focus on usability and information architecture and use visual design to communicate these principles. There is no cap to the knowledge you can gain in these disciplines, and the more you know, the finer your product.

  • anonymous says:

    I think this is a critical issue facing most designers involved in multimedia, or new media. Whether you’re building a CD-ROM (remember those?) or a web site, you’re to some extent creating software. And software, or at least the fucntionality of software, is the domain of programmers and engineers. While publishing and printed media design does require a fundamental understanding of the limitations and techniques of printing and imaging, this more “traditional” craft is segmented into more self-contained technologies and skillsets. Building a website is both software and publishing and requires a broader, more technology based skillset. While I personally feel that it is important to maintain the integrity purity of graphic design as a craft based in art, typography, photography and architecture in order to produce the best work ( the same way a classically trained cellist might not be better off spending years learning digital audio engineering and MIDI technology), I feel that any skills or knowledge that helps one work smarter and more productively is more important than protecting their craft from technology, or “the other side.” (Oh, all the right brain vs left brain; art vs science discussions this could lead to!)

    I myself was introduced to scripting and programming with Director, and honestly I’ve been fascinated by that type of thing ever since. I spend a great deal of my time learning things like JavaScript and even Perl. I draw and paint, but also use Wintel PCs, Macs and UNIX systems everyday. Admittedly it is hard to maintain the logical separation sometimes, especially when invoved in Information Architecture, which encompases everything from content to navigation to user interface – a perfect case of the lines between design and engineering blurring.

  • anonymous says:

    Coming from a traditional print background there’s already a hurdle for a ‘web’ designer to overcome, but knowing the tech talk is also a major issue. You have to know the limits, boundaries, and infinitesimal options availble in this new medium.

  • anonymous says:

    I work for an Internet company where I am one of two designers that work with a team of several developers. Just knowing design is not going to cut it. The world that a developer sees and the world that a designer sees are completely different. The more knowledge that each teams gains from the other does nothing but improve the product. I have learned more about design and myself in the short 9 months I have been here from the developers than I have in 4 years in college.

    The bottom line:
    To be successful, designers need to have the knowledge of the technical issues and be able to work side by side with developers.

  • anonymous says:

    I’m surprised this is even an issue. We survived the desktop publishing era. In that time there wasn’t a heck of a lot of new things to learn except new features of application programs and new printing technologies.

    The web demands learning of a wide range of things that are far beyond the curriculum of the average graphic design degreee program such as XML, JAVA, JavaScript, HTML, Active X, even Visual Basic, to name only a few. I think there will be a specialization in our field that educational institutions will not be able to catch up with. A majority of the web knowledge that I own has been acquired by reading books. Books that are out-dated shortly after they are printed.

    Survival of the fittest? Perhaps. But there’s another way to look at it – versatility. If I can wield HTML like a coder and wield Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Flash, I’m going to be a pretty valuable asset to someone who needs a multi-disciplanary individual.

    That mode of employment however, should have a significant pay increase with it and if it doesn’t then we’ll see the industry fall into compartmentalized categories. I’d rather see it go the other way. David Siegel breaks down these categories well in his book: Secrets of Successful Web Sites. As a small proprietorship though, I know that I have to wear several hats. And that’s part of the fun for me.

  • anonymous says:

    Rather than turning this into the slamfest it so richly deserves I’ll attempt to focus on the reasonable approach.
    First off why don’t product developers do their homework and just ask designers what features they would like in a particular medium, and how they would like to interact with that medium from a designers tools point of view.

    Once they have done that, maybe a few focus groups with an assortment of totally technically illiterate designers and see how fast it all shakes out.

    Then throw it all at the engineers to do their job, and every time the engineer comes up with a different solution than the one requested they are politely requested to get back on task and give us the designers exactly what they requested.

    Forget all the warm fuzzy politically correct crap. Real designers design better than any engineer could ever hope to and engineers engineer better than designers could ever wish to.

    The fact that designers need to know any code illustrates the very sorry state of engineering.

    In the not to distant past it was considered a professional insult to have someone outside of ones given trade show you how to do your job, especially when they haven’t been formally trained in it.

    Macromedia seems to be figuring it out faster than most. The only thing that bugs me is the programs have been over sold on what they can do based on a reasonable learning curve. Lets face it, unless mom and dad are willing the foot the bills for the next year you won’t be making a living off this stuff any time soon. Don’t give up that day job.

    Case in point when Pagemaker was first released (Quark wasn’t around yet) I was making money faster in 1 month using the program than using the current technologies of that time.
    God that felt good.
    Eric M.

  • anonymous says:

    This short piece lacks detail. It treats a topic of interest to people who are very familiar with the issues; details not generalizations would have been more helpful

  • anonymous says:

    I was under the impression that designers should ALWAYS know how to program. After all, what’s the use of designing a UI if you don’t know how the back-end of it works? Designers and artists will get more out of their work if they understand the limitations and capabilities of the site their creating.

  • anonymous says:

    Accounting. Medicine. Architecture. Recording engineering. Web
    development.

    What do these professions have in common? They are crafts.

    People spend countless years honing their craft. An accountant who
    specializes in mergers and acquisitions knows a thing or two about
    taxation and day-to-day book keeping. A doctor who specializes in cardiology
    is very likely to know a few things about neurology, chemistry and phsychiatry.
    An architech who designs shopping malls probably knows a bit about
    structural engineering, aesthetics and ground composition. A recording
    engineer who records symphony orchestras not only knows how all the dials
    on the recording board work, but is more than likely a musician and knows a
    few things about music composition. So, is it best for a web developer to
    only know how to either design, write html, build an e-commerce solution, or
    add vbScript functionality? No, of course not. Should they know programming?
    Why not!

    If this industry is to progress as a profession – and it will – the attitude that
    people should only know their particular area of expertise in Web
    development will be stifling. In order to be valuable – as a designer,
    publisher, project manager, programmer, engineer, whatever – to a Web
    team, it only makes sense for the right hand to know what the left hand can
    do so people can work effectively towards a common goal – to build the best
    site.

    I’m not sure why someone would suggest that asking an engineer to
    understand design is insulting to the profession, or that a designer who thinks
    they comprehend engineering is only fooling his or herself, as an individual
    suggested in one of the earlier replies. This, to me, suggests a certain level
    of insecurity, something of which should not be promoted.

    If I were to try composing a Web development team tomorrow, how would it
    look? It would be comprised of the most productive, efficient, talented,
    compassionate and self-secure individuals I could find. This team would
    be productive, but more importantly, forward thinking, collaborating at an
    awesome level. They would learn from each other in order to have a better
    understanding of each area of expertise. Why? So, people give consideration
    to each area of expertise while they focus on their particular aspect of a given
    project. This would allow designers to focus on what they do best while
    giving consideration to the limitations of the programmer and vice versa.
    They would be limited only by their ideas and not by the limiting effects
    of politics, insecurities and incomprehension.

    I agree with Tom Hale, VP of marketing for Macromedia, and others who
    are of the attitude that those individuals who can bridge the gap between
    design and programming will enjoy more opportunities in the profession of
    Web development. This, for me, will mean progress – the lines of
    communication will open, and it will help breakdown barriers to developing
    Web apps.

    Who wouldn’t benefit from that? Let me know.

    Todd C.

  • anonymous says:

    This article is too shallow. It needs more thought. I found that the reader responses were better crafted than the story itself. How strange.

  • >