The link to graphpaper.com is wonker. Just thought you’d like to know.

PS - any news on the book? I am still waiting with baited breath.

Graphic design, to me, is a more mature design discipline that has been around for over a century. That is, until about 15 years ago, when graphic designers started moving to the web. But, a lot of graphic designers still come from the print influence.

I’ve never thought of myself of a graphic designer because of this distinction. My print experience consists of nothing more than business cards. I felt people would expect me to know more about print than I actually do. That’s the connotation that comes with the word graphic design, even though, technically, graphic design is about visual communication and print is just one medium of graphic design.

I think the bigger issue here is, there’s a lot of overlap between all the design disciplines, and each design discipline has a different view of how they fit into the process.

Using visual design over graphic design wasn’t intended to be an insult, it was more about how I defined graphic design.

I agree that there is much overlap between the various disciplines in design on the web, and I’ve struggled at times to try to explain what I do given all the terms flying around out there.

I definitely see that there are distinctions out there that call for people to specialize.

For me and the work I do, I find myself using the following:

1.)There’s the visual presentation - designing how something looks (this is where I typically use the term “graphic design”

2.)Theres the interaction piece - designing what user interactions should take place when and how, i.e. what is the best control mechanism, the best data representation, the workflow, etc. (I take this to be interaction design - but then you have the whole debate on interaction design vs. interactive design, ugh)

The conversations I’ve had with other designers have shown me though, that these terms all mean different things to different people - web designer, user experience designer, usability designer, information designer - they’re all out there flying around.

It is too bad that we as designers (of any kind) can’t just agree on definitions that would allow us to clearly describe exactly what we do and don’t do to our peers and our clients.

Mark,
I agree - you illustrated the components of “graphic design” well in that last example - but where I’ve found difficulty is in talking with clients.

When most of the people I work with hear the word “graphic” they instantly think “pictures” and no matter the number of times I explain that there are many components, they would always return to “pictures.”

I have a suspicion that this may be some of the reason as to why we see so many people using these splinter terms or specialties (myself included) to describe what they do.

I agree with you that this is all “graphic design” but in my experience, telling someone I’m a graphic designer either leaves them with a limited idea as to what I do, or the wrong idea all together.

Again, I’m not trying to debunk your argument or further your frustration.  I find this all a bit vexing as well - even though I perpetuate it myself.

I’m merely trying to describe, what I believe to be, a possible reason for why this is occurring.

Mark,

That’s a great example to explain graphic design, but I’m not trying to say graphic designers don’t design interactions, there are interaction designers that specialize explicitly in interaction and I wouldn’t go so far as to say the are graphic designers.

With my blog post, I was trying to explain the distinctions between the two specializations. In the past I’ve called myself just a web designer but that would have seemed too ambiguous for the title of this post. As a web designer (one that has done mostly informational websites in the past), I didn’t have much experiece with web applications and the interaction that comes with it.

But I can understand the argument of “Visual Designers” versus “Graphic Designers,” they do the same thing. I think job titles are given with context as to what the company specializes in.

Where I work, we do mostly interaction design and development. The term visual design arose when we talk about graphics, layout, and typography. As I said in the previous comment, “graphic designer” has a print connotation, and we have no ties to print. at least as far as client work goes.

But believe me, I do not in any way want to propel the stereotype that visual/graphic designers exist to “make things pretty.” I go on a tirade when developers make use of that phrase, and they usually never say it again :)

But you bring up a good point, using visual design might propel the stereotype that designers make things pretty. That’s something I’m not trying to do.

"The Panel Picker launched this week. I’m down for speaking twice.” I like this idea i voted today there! I also like the “Using Color: From Black to White and Everything in Between.” panel I will also vote for it. So thanks Mark for another great post! Regards

While I understand and respect your position, I have to disagree with you here. It’s true that on some occasions graphic designers have to think about the interaction, just in the same way that on occasion interaction designer have to think about layout. However I’d say that there was enough of a difference in focus to warrant two separate disciplines.

It’s all to do with the primary focus. With graphic design you’re focussing in micro interactions. How the visitor navigates through the page hierarchy, how the content elements are designed for readability, how the various calls to function need to appear in order to create the right response.

With Interaction design or user experience design, you’re designing systems on macro level. You’re looking at the entire journey as a whole, rather than the individual elements, and tying that into a complete experience. On this level, the visual manifestation is much less important that the architectural structure. In fact, In most cases the visual manifestation is a distraction at this level, as it forces you to focus on the details rather than the bigger picture.

I see this separation being similar to an Architect and an Interior designer. Both are problem solvers and both are important for a building to work properly. However one is obsessed about the big picture and the other about the details.

Of course, you do occasionally come across individuals that can span both disciplines, and I’d probably count you in this camp. However it’s more of a rarity than maybe you give it credit for.

I was really referring to the ‘interaction’ design happening on the micro level. I completely agree that a good graphic designer also has to deal with a lot of macro design issues, just not on the interaction side of things.

I can understand your dislike of the term ‘visual designer’ and your preference for ‘graphic designer’, but they pretty much feel like the same thing to me. In companies that have multiple disciplinary design teams,maybe interface designer is a better choice of title?

OT: link under “Chris” is broken

A bit off-topic but an Art Director and a Graphics Designer are no where to be compared, despite the fact that a Graphics Designer is a jack of all, The real theme is direction, and an Art Director freaks in that…
Both are equal in the same proportion and maybe an Art Director thinks the same way as you do, feeling a bit proud to be called an Art (Very Vast Field) Director rather than a Graphics Designer.

I find quite a bit of discussion of theory on this site, but far less in terms of visual examples.  I am a visual person.  I would appreciate seeing more visual examples of what you are talking about.