I have come into web design from an IT background. I started doing web pages because I understood how it all worked, not because I could make pretty sites. For me one of the exciting things about building web sites is the variety. I get to do HTML, CSS, SQL, ASP & Javascriptat the moment. I get to do some interesting programming whilst having the satisfaction of having something nice to look at as a finished product.

Its readily apparent that in systems of enterprise complexity you definitely need people fulfilling the role of architect, system designer, database designer, web designer, web developer, graphical artist and usability expert not to mention all the non-technical roles.

The different technical roles definitely require different skills and some people can cover more than one role.  An information architect is not the same as a web designer – one requires data modelling skills and the other needs to know the mechanics of web pages.  You could have a generic designer covering both skills, but essentially two roles are being fulfilled, they are not really the same role.  You could have a designer who is skilled in all the different types of design, but its a lot to know, and you may need several designers anyway just to cope with the design workload.

What I’m trying to rant towards here is that because Web 2.0 will be about more complex, more effective websites.  Therefore the situation will move towards that needed to produce enterprise class websites which by their nature have to be very usable and are very complex and hence the skills and roles will be more similar for websites. 

Personally, I believe that all roles should consider that usable functionality is the primary aim of any website, and therefore it should influence every aspect of a websites design and implementation.

I think I’m agreeing with the author of this article, but I’m coming from the perspective of someone who was a web designer once but shifted to enterprise systems design and fully appreciates the different skillsets.  I shudder to think of how little I considered fundamental system design concerns when I was a web desinger, but I can see how I got away with it as the level of complexity was low enough to ignore most of them, and fudge the rest without any real understanding.

Phew.. glad I got to the end of this rant…

I agree that design is about so much more than the aesthetic. A dictionary definition of design is this -

a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made

which is a usable one. It emphasises the process of thinking that is requires to design well.

btw on the subject of job titles, can I have “Senior Vice-President of coloring-in” ?

It seems to be a trend to focus solely on Web 2.0/Web applications as being the future/saviour of digital design.

There will always be a parallel arena for marketing/integrated digital campaigns that aren’t application based, that also need “designers” to develop solutions to these problems in a intelligent, clear and unique way.

These are probably seen as more ‘aesthetic’ in terms of their slickness – although in no way should they be any more devoid of a generative concept – but they should also not be disregarded as not worthy.

Perhaps its my age or experience, but personally I believe any Visual Communicators/Designers should be able to turn their hand to anything that is asked of them, be it Web 2.0, marcomms or any niche market defined by the target audience coupled with the answer to the problem.

Design is fundamentally about solving problems, but it must also stimulate, excite and engage its intended audience.

I’m a Designer not a Coder!- PS don’t worry it is relevant. No shameless plug.

The bathing ape has no clothes

Adam Greenfield on designer vs. stylist, from a while back. No timestamp, and I can’t remember when I first saw it, but a while ago… overlaps your piece here a bit.

Sigh…if only that were true. I’m signed up to a job listing that sends me emails on a daily basis advertising positions for Web Designers requiring expert knowledge of: <insert the usual design packages here> plus HTML, XHTML, CSS, XML, PHP, Perl, Java, Actionscript, AA, RAC, BT, Blah, Blah, Blah…

Surely these folk must realise is what they’ll end up with is a ‘Jack of all trades…master of none’

I tend to go by Visual Communicater, seems to cover a lot more in it’s description of what I do – day to day.

I still think that the Web 2.0 will come about largely as a result of “graphic designers” becoming multi-talented designers, with scripting and other skills under their belts.

I think that talented visual designers might be in a better position to see how good design and usability planning will lead to powerful Ajax applications. “Graphic” designers have always been worried about how their nice web designs would work out once the functionality was added, but the programmers who ended up implementing them typically did not take usability into consideration. (This is my experience, forgive me if I’m misrepresenting things.)

This is not to disparage programmers, but they live in a world of complex, powerful languages and programming tools. They’re technical people used to steep learning curves. It’s difficult for them to see things in a simple fashion like a user. I’m sure there will be the odd exceptional programmer (perhaps some of the comment posters on this page) who takes a leading roll in the new Web, but so far, most of the movers seem to be multi-disciplinary individuals like Shaun Inman and design shops like 37signals.

In any case, it would seem to indicate that this particular aspect of “Web 2.0” is reasonably well established.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030929.html