[Bill Posters]

Wondering how the members here view their skills/talents.
Would also like to hear why they do 'design-only', 'build-only*' or both.

(* for 'building' read: '[at least] able to take a design and turn it into a functioning website.)

I'd also like to know which tools those who handle the build use (hand-code or wysiwyg and if the latter, which app).

I'm trying to get an idea of how the industry is divided into design-only, build-only and those who do both.


For those who do both, I'd like to know how you rate each part of your ability.

[gray]

both, but stonger on design. I kinda work out the coding as i need it really.

[Mr Fred]

both.

but again a simply css/xhtml site is a doodle to do. I couldnt parse xml form a database into french? or update image capture within a database.

I use photoshop, illustrator, flash and topstyle, php, coldfusion (when needed)

[tomson]

Hmmm a tough one...design-only though i think.

As for why... I guess I drifted into the graphic design area of things after I got disillusioned with the (as I saw it) pompous-bullshit-spouting world of fine art. Always been more of a realist than a theorist so creating things for a purpose appealed to me more. Trained initially in fine art and illustration then moved towards graphic design, typography, design history, design theory etc then into the interactive elements of design.
The shift towards web based design happened due to market forces I guess - more work, more money, more opportunities.The building side of things has never appealed to me - and if i dont want to do something then I dont do it. Simple as that really.

I enjoy what I do, have a nice stressed free work environment and I'm perfectly happy with that for the time being.Oh and I'm a stubborn sod.

[sleepingfish]

I've voted "Both" but I think of myself as a designer who codes, rather than a coder who designs. If I want some Javascript done, I'll go find me a code monkey, but if I'm laying out a page I'll have a go at all that css malarky.

[Bill Posters]

Fwiw, I vote both too and like sleepingfish I consider myself a designer first and foremost.

It's just that I've picked up enough of the how-to to be able to put together a simple, but pro-quality site myself.

I can't/don't do any complex back-end stuff, but then the skills I've picked up have only extended to those that would help me publish the sites I've sought to be involved with.
I've no desire to go any deeper than the most basic php 'tricks' such as includes and random content selection. Anything heavier than that and I tend to glaze over.

Even though I consider my build abilities to be strictly secondary to my design abilities, I consider them to be sufficiently developed for me to advise and comment when others (including 'build-only' folk) miss an opportunity to improve the quality of their site building.

I haven't touched a wysiwyg for yonks and find BBEdit a much more comfortable (and reliable) XHTML/CSS/javascript environment than DW ever was.
(I look back on my GoLive Cyberstudio days with amusement, shame and horror. Anyone who's seen GLCS/GL markup and javascript output will know what I mean. )

My abilities with website building grew out of the desire to see my own design work presented online. It seemed only natural for me to do that part as well, rather than hand it over to a 'code-monkey'.
Perhaps it was because the first site I became involved with was a labour of love rather than a 3rd-part commission that I've maintained and developed my interest and abilities in web building.
Similarly, perhaps if my involvement with the web had been more constant I'd be more understanding of those who simply pass on their designs for other folks to build.

[Mr Fred]

but why do you have a problem with it bill - it doesnt make sense.

This is how the industy works.

I can see your point for little websites that are nothing more than brochures but for what most of us do or need to do the websites are bigger than that.

As such they have a function other than to validate and have nice looking code.

[Bill Posters]

Perhaps I'm just a control freak.

[dorian]

[moved / er? what happened?]

I used to work in a place where the designer was working in a team with a builder. It worked very well.
I have voted designer-only because I am primarly a designer = my background... education... dedication...ambition...
I can "drag and drop" things in dreamweaver and put a website together* and even get the hyperlinks right... with mouse-overs & stuff... or even download the right extension sometimes (!)
STILL - I am not trying to sell this as a service - simply because I know that there are people out there that can do the job much better! If asked if I can put a site together I say (very carefully) 'yes' - BUT - I always tell people that what they get might not be 100% "quality". And by that I don't mean site not working across browsers - but small-simple-things** that I know a coder would get snotty about... they have their reasons.

But the problem is that the two groups (designers, developers) step each other on the toes - whereas cooperation would be the best way. (don't tell me it's not always possible - zzz)

*good enough for my own needs
**designer's ignorance is bliss

[tomson]

looks like the thought police have arrived.

[sleepingfish]

[Bill Posters]

You can 'think' what you like.
Posting it is a different matter.

I'm simply exercising my wish (and ability) to keep the thread on track and abuse-free.


Anyway, moving on...

[tomson]

You called me a tart - i called you a cunt. An eye for an eye as they say.

[Bill Posters]

Serious lack of comparative judgment.

Take it to PM.

[Stickman]

Originally Posted by Bill Posters

Perhaps I'm just a control freak.

Looks like it.


I agree with mik's post about context - the bigger sites should be approached differently (and should have a budget that reflects this).

In the same way that tomson can use "graphic design, typography, design history, design theory etc" to produce a better design, other specialists can fall back on their expertise in usability, accessibilty, browser compatibility, coding standards, javascript, backend, search engines etc etc to produce a better functioning site.
Like I said, there are two main elements to a site: the code a user doesn't see and the design they do. It makes sense to get both right, but that doesn't necessarily mean both can't be done by the same person.

[Brown]

i've gone build only - cos that is what i specialise in. i can, and have designed sites (all of the work on flark is my own work) but i know people who are quicker and better than i am.

like mentioned above, bigger sites require more specialised people but i also believe the same should be applied to the smaller sites. i find my time is better spent building new business and developing sites properly rathern than two days spent 'designing' a site that one of my mac monkeys can do in a few hours.

i like the idea of a designer workingwith a builder - that's really rare but should it be? most advertising creatives consist of teams where you'll have a copywriter and a designer. why should this not be the case with websites too?

[dorian]

a coder / developer can probably do without a designer if he/she has a *sufficient* understanding of aesthetics.
hypothetically speaking.... and depending on the project of course.

(and I never said that)

[Bill Posters]

Originally Posted by Brown

…

I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't.

I started this thread to find out if the industry slim down had created (by necessity) a generation of multi-disciplinary designer/developers that opened the door to one-man bands becoming significantly more popular as an option in the industry.

I was merely surprised by the apparent reaction (in another thread) to the suggestion that some folk can handle both aspects of website creation themselves without compromising the quality at either stage.

It's an impression that is probably partially shaped by the fact that I know more freelance designers than agency-based designers.
Most of the people I studied with on my last course either went freelance (sole trader) or started their own agency with a partner.

The understanding I had of the make up of the industry is roughly that reflected in the poll.
I know there should be a bunch of caveats about any generalisations drawn from such a small poll, but I think it shows enough activity in the 'both' sector to challenge the notion that the de facto standard is still that site design and site development are mutually exclusive disciplines and should ideally remain that way.

I'm just surprised that, given the mounting evidence online that the two skills/talents can be combined in one person to great effect, that some still stick so doggedly to the assertion that the two can only really be done best when done separately - or that one person only really has one skill or talent that they can do to professional standards.

I would have thought that the notion of 'renaissance man' was more wide spread and more accepted.


I guess my interest in another part stems from many previous discussions about the changing definition of what it means to be a designer (with regards to being 'author').
I've always been interested in pushing against definitions and established boundaries - though far more often from a purely academic POV.

[Bill Posters]

Originally Posted by dorian

a coder / developer can probably do without a designer if he/she has a *sufficient* understanding of aesthetics.
hypothetically speaking.... and depending on the project of course.

(and I never said that)

Funnily enough, I put forward the suggestion that talent moves more easily from designer to developer than vice versa.
I based the comment on the suggestion that 'development' (read: coding) is much more a skill than a talent, whereas the opposite is true of design.

I put forward that a talented designer who is conversant with print production problems should have no real problems getting their head around similar logical production problems in site building.
Conversely, a talented would find it more challenging to emulate/learn good design.

The rules of site building are more defined and as such leave less to judgement than is the case with (visual) design.

The purpose of this is not to belittle the work of developers, but just to state that you can't learn good design from a book.


But that's another discussion.

[tomson]

Originally Posted by Bill Posters

I would have thought that the notion of 'renaissance man' was more wide spread and more accepted.

How very 16th Century of you Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Posters

I was merely surprised by the apparent reaction (in another thread) to the suggestion that some folk can handle both aspects of website creation themselves without compromising the quality at either stage....

...I'm just surprised that, given the mounting evidence online that the two skills/talents can be combined in one person to great effect, that some still stick so doggedly to the assertion that the two can only really be done best when done separately - or that one person only really has one skill or talent that they can do to professional standards.

No ones saying that the two skills cant be combined - like I said previously the market is demanding more and more that people become multi-skilled and I think its every persons right to either follow that or choose to ignore it or do whatever they see fit. But what is questionable is whether your 'renaissance man' is as accomplished in each of his chosen skills as the person who (for one reason or another) chooses to specialise. Now,obvioulsy its a case by case thing, but from my experience, more often than not the specialist comes out on top. Of course, that's not to say its a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions to every rule.

Its interesting you bring up the agency vs freelancer thing. I started my career freelancing, then spent a while working for a few big London agencies, and have now gone back to freelancing. Worked with print, kiosks, big brands, start ups, with dedicated IAs, copywriter, marketing types etc etc but off the top of my head I can think of maybe half a dozen people who I've met who really are specialists in both design and development, ie they do both brilliantly. They all work for agencies - which I have to say surprises me a little.