[Sigia-l] Putting the "Graphic" back with"Designer"(was:thelesser importance of home pages)

[Listera]

Christopher Fahey:
> In your model, would it be appropriate to divide the labor this way?:
> - One person does the mood boards, the site maps, the text layouts, the
> flowcharts, the photography, and the functional specs.
> - The other does the the logo, the search taxonomy, the color studies, the
> typography, the page wireframes, the illustrations, and the business
> requirements.

No, it wouldn't. 

This approach confuses implementation (HOW) with strategy (WHAT). In my
world, the latter takes precedence. When non-Designers decide WHAT should be
done and master-of-one-trade practitioners then dutifully implement the HOW
part, design has abdicated its raison d'etre.

> To me that sounds like a crazy way to split up the work, even if both people
> were equally masterful at all of the listed tasks. A more logical way would
> be to decide who is better at graphic stuff and assign them the
> graphic-related work, and the one who is better at interaction design and
> information architecture would do the IA-related work. The first person we'd
> call the "graphic designer", and the second we'd call the "information
> architect". 

This is all HOW. Far more important to me is WHAT will be done and WHY, as
opposed to WHO will do them and HOW. Because if you don't get the former
right, the latter doesn't matter much.

> Hollywood analogy:

That's a great analogy to make my point; while, yes, there are many titles
on/off the film set, they all follow in their own tasks (HOW) the direction
set by the Director (WHAT).

And the reason why everybody wants to be the Director, as you say, is
because they explicitly know that the Director is the one who shapes the
product/audience experience. He is the difference maker. A DP or an editor
is NOT going to make a movie different from the one the Director specifies.

While everybody wants to be the Director, it's exceedingly rare that a
successful Director goes to work as a craftsman on somebody else's film set.
That alone speaks volumes.

As I said, this is a matter of elevation, not substitution, of skills and
expectations.

> More likely, however, I think you are basically saying "Let's call the
> project leader the 'Designer'".

No, what I am saying is, "Let's get a Designer to lead the project." Huge
difference. Currently, the project leader is often geeks, MBAs, product
managers, project managers and all manner of corporate bureaucrats...
anybody but Designer. My advocacy is to change that. A Designer (with
design, technology, business, communication and technology experience and
the ability to balance the needs of the client and users) is best suited for
the mission. And nobody's going to cede that leadership to a
master-of-one-trade, especially in the corporate world.

So I suppose it all comes down to: do you want to lead or follow?

----
Ziya

"Whoever controls the definition, controls the outcome."