here’s a thought on ’standards.’

I agree that they would help a great deal. It would serve a lot of people to have standards that they adhere to.

however, in the arts and creative fields, standards are also a huge roadblock.

in my classroom, standards are extending things like the elements and principals of design, grid theory, etc. The student needs those for obvious reasons.

However, in our context, as a ‘community,’ who among US will set the standards?
When I was with the AIGA board, we would have events, but mostly populated with students.
The people who’s opinions, experience, accomplishment I respect don’t need our ‘community’ and don’t/won’t come.

Cramer Kassult, Campbell Fisher, Moses Anshell, Catapult, Ditko, etc… these people don’t hang out in our community. I’d be far more willing to hear what they would suggest standards be than any of us.

No offense to us or you, but in most instances, our community is a lot of Green Belts talking like Black Belts.

Not to take from anyone’s work, and in no way belittling our individual efforts.

I’m more than happy to take advice and criticism from most of you, but I dont think anyone here has reached the level of dictating standards.

That winds up being ego-fodder for someone, and that’s the last thing we need.

Let me throw something into the mix.

I have worked most of my career in the creation of embedded systems. These are small computers inside a product or device that give the device it’s function. The controller and software in your microwave oven is a fairly simple embedded system. Similar such controller hardware and software exist in things like musical greeting cards, watches, televisions and Mars rovers. Many, like hard disks drives for example, don’t even have a human interface and the case is mostly defined for mounting and size requirements, not looks.

I work with fellow software engineers, mechanical engineers, VHDL engineers and electrical engineers. When we want to refer to them all as a group they are called “designers.” In fact the official job title for some include the word “designer.”

The creativity required to perform a particular SATA interface command
- within a specific time limit
- with the right signal sequences
- ensuring the integrity of the data
- in 128K of RAM
- through a dozen or more silicon chips
is as much a DESIGN effort as making a company logo with just the right proportions, with just right color, with the perfect font and shape to stir recognition and the right emotion every time customer sees it.

Yes, embedded systems engineers are designers and work in design, even if they don’t know a gradient from a pattern fill.

In my opinion.

Designers have been the red-headed stepchildren of the creative industry for years. Even in the 21st century market, where the role of design in business is more apparent and critical than ever before, advertising, marketing and PR somehow still remain the holy trinity. I’ve always found that to be strange. Design is the animating principle of the creative process, after all. Advertising, marketing and PR are all creative processes, therefore they all require a foundation of design. What I mean is, they’re all meaningless without design. Advertising tries to convince you to buy a thing while design makes the thing worth buying. You can’t market something unless you’ve designed it, designed its brand and designed the strategy with which you’re executing your marketing. PR is the same. Design comes first. Period.

Problem is that anybody can call themselves a designer if they want to. The proliferation of computers and software has created a flood of no-talent off-the-shelf graphic “gurus”. But, knowing how to use Photoshop doesn’t make someone a designer anymore than knowing how to scramble an egg makes someone a chef. Still, society at large has, over the decades, been presented with so much bad design that it’s grown used to it and is satisfied with mediocrity. Talented designers, trained and skilled in their craft, are viewed as egocentric aesthetes. Truthfully, the stereotype is largely deserved because there are far too many prima donas in our industry. However, that should not negate the validity of design or its importance.

The brightest brands and the bright minds behind them understand the power of design. All one need do is look. Apple, Starbucks, Nike, Harley Davidson and Coke are just some of the iconic brands that get design. Advertising, marketing and PR don’t sell iPhones. Design sells iPhones. The industrial design of the product, the graphic design of the advertising and packaging and the interior design of the retail space combine to design the experience that encompasses every touchpoint associated with the iPhone. That designed experience is what sells the iPhone. And, it doesn’t matter one damn bit how many bad things people might say about the iPhone (or AT&T) on Twitter, because at the end of the day you’ve been charmed by that amazing design and you want to be a part of THAT tribe. Checkmate. Q.E.D.

There will never be accreditation for design. Designers will never have to pass a bar exam to practice. Trained designers will always be forced to compete with hacks who charge less because they deliver less and the misuse and misrepresentation of the term “design” will continue to plague the practice. But, the tide is turning. Design has never been more appreciated than it is today. Designers have finally been given a seat at the grown-ups table. To stay there we just have to learn not to talk with our mouths full.

1. I love the points that you raised. They are certainly not new issues, but to many they ofter are new.

2. I have had a long standing issue with the premise: Art does not equal design.
I believe the thesis is not even an accurate or logical one. It, to me, is the same kind of fallacy as asking if God can create a rock so big that He can’t move it.

why? Art is the same as design, design is the same as art. Aside from when it’s not. Then it’s not. Because when it is, then it is. Let me ameliorate a primary notion in Quantum Physics: X can also equal Y in some states. In the search for a unified theory of both Cosmological and Subatomic ‘everything,’ this duality of states is a serious issue. For some, in a nutshell, it is an issue that wags the dog.

In this same context, design does not HAVE to work. I believe that this unique condition is a well meaning but unenforceable rule… aside from when it has to be. They are distinct only when they are.

3. In regards to the issue of defining terms, I agree that it is important. I think that it remains a bone of contention for many, as the profession HAS NO standards or ‘union.’ With unenforceable rules of terminology, it will always linger. I work hard to clearly define what I am offering to clients and interested parties.

I believe that making the effort to care about proper labels is a good contagion to spread. I work hard to help the students I instruct feel a similar responsibility to the profession.

Thanks for pointing out the issue of a web designer and a web developer. That was one thing the original Refresh Phoenix community got really right. However, web development was coined in regards to all of the various parts that went into the final product, from code, design, photography, etc.

Hooray, a great discussion. thanks Mark

The most my clients can usually muster is “the website guy” so unfortunately I have to become very creative with my own job titles in order to communicate with potential clients without offending the Design Industry which sadly has denied my membership application three times now.

One way you can distance yourself from the “web designer” who just bought a copy of FrontPage is by picking a descriptive niche like “web interaction designer” or whatever. It sucks to embellish what shouldn’t require embellishment, but then again my email signature doesn’t say “really good computer guy” so we’re probably all guilty of it. (Note to self: change signature to “really good computer guy.”)

If someone “doctors” a recipe by adding an unusual ingredient, that doesn’t make them a Doctor.

If someone “teaches” you a lesson by using punishment, that doesn’t make them a Teacher.

If someone “programs” a DVR, that doesn’t make them a Programmer.

If someone “designs” a site using a Wordpress template, that doesn’t make them a Designer.

Some more food for thought: people can have a successful career as a designer and never understand basic design principles, where as you won’t get very far as a doctor if you don’t understand medicine. Everyone knows what feeling healthy is, but few know what good design is.

“Then design becomes a practice in line with Architecture and Medicine.”

I think this is my point of contention.. You should be saying Visual Design or Graphic Design or Industrial Design here and not just design. It is ambiguous without the prefix. I think if you had done that every where you used design in the original post I would have taken little exception.

“If I said “thoughtful creation” or “intentional creativity” I think you’d be satisfied with my change, correct?”

Much more so yes.

“But again again again, creativity ≠ design, no matter the thoughtfulness involved. ”

I disagree based on the definitions of the words. I would say there is such thing as BAD thoughtful/purposed creation. Don’t confuse bad design as not being design at all. If someone takes the time and effort to put purpose and thought behind their creation they are in fact going through the process of design. Perhaps their process and or result is utter shit, but it doesn’t make it not design.

If you were to say the only thing we called effort was effort that created valuable results it would be silly. In the same way it is to say the only thing one can call design is something that yields valuable creation.

“I think you are trying to assign words to your field that would be better replaced with something more in line with the lexicon of engineering.”

I am not assigning words to any field/industry/practice. That is my point. The word design stands independent of any field/industry/practice. You are attempting to shoe horn that word to mean something specific to define a field/industry/practice. That is the problem. Using a simple prefix eliminates that problem. I suggest doing so to prevent confusion in conversation, especially with people not in your industry.

“what works in the world of developers does not always work for designers”

Absolutely each industry needs to find ways to express itself, but doing so through the bastardization of words helps no one. For example, Free Software in my industry is completely misleading. Is it free as in price or free as in freedom? In most languages those two meanings have separate words.

That said this is cool conversation regardless. Hopefully it doesnt scare people away from your blog.

I’ve heard the argument that the word “create” should never be used, as its impossible to truly create anything anymore, but that’s another story. My ’sophomoric’ change was only because you had the original definition wrong.

The idea of defining “design” by what we do is not at all my point. Defining design is a start, not an end. The lexicon of our industries needs to be vast and consistent for it to rise above where it is now. This is again going more deeply than I intended here, but there is a need for design to have a stronger lexicon and an awareness of that language. This is because we are not in a position to have things like licenses and other methods of certifying our skill set. This is an issue bigger than Phoenix and I’m not just speaking for myself in this post. Start with what design is, then continue with definitions of how design is done. Then add how it can be done better. etc etc etc, until there’s literature, expectations and theory. Then design becomes a practice in line with Architecture and Medicine. Yes, lofty hopes, and I’m certainly not expecting to make a dent in any way on a global level. But locally, in our community, I think we can do some real good in defining our roles. This is a conversation that started in my university education, and I’ve seen continued in grad school papers, professional journals all the way through to PhD mailing lists from around the world. Rising above the common “Oh, so you are good at photoshop” or “Oh, so you make lamps?” ideas of design is a long term goal in the design field.

Your points about “creating” without “designing” are valid, but my original point that you are still misusing the word stands. If I said “thoughtful creation” or “intentional creativity” I think you’d be satisfied with my change, correct? Obviously I mean creativity with PURPOSE, and I should have said so. But, creativity with purpose is still not “design” in the sense of my industry. We are on the same page as far as the importance of thinking while being creative. But again again again, creativity ≠ design, no matter the thoughtfulness involved.

I think you are trying to assign words to your field that would be better replaced with something more in line with the lexicon of engineering. I think Development/Programming is more technical, yes creative still, but none the less more towards that language than of design. And, I think what works in the world of developers does not always work for designers. I have another post about that draft written too

@Joe

I am not claiming the word as my own. This is an ongoing conversation in many arenas. Graphic design is often now called visual communication design, etc. There is a need to solidify the meaning, not for me, but for us. I’m not sure what field you are in, but like I keep saying (and I added the point to the original post) there is a need for this for the industry.

I am obviously not the person that would say _____ design isn’t real design, but I can, based on the efforts and literature of my peers, express what is an industry standard understanding. As an example, you say furniture designer, which is a subset of Industrial design. Charles and Ray Eames were exactly that. But if you mean furniture manufacturing? No, that’s not a designer. This is an accepted distinction between fields. I’m not being divisive, there is no ill-will towards peoples work, there is only the desire to help make the definitions of who we are within the design world clear, and yes, make it clear who is not part of that group. See the second paragraph of my reply to Derek for why.

Being more specific is obviously important. Someone can be a Professor, before the additional information of what they teach, in the same way that someone can be a Designer, before giving the additional information of what they design. We’re not there yet. If you hear Professor, you had a good idea of what they do. ‘Designer’ needs the same clarity before you end up at the specifics.

Yep.