Web Developer, Web Designer, or Graphic Designer?
posted Apr 24, 2008 at 08:52:48 PM by Doug Gibson.
Apart from the disturbing statements I heard about ColdFusion while job hunting earlier this year, another thing that I found interesting was the terminology used for front-end work.
Since I was also looking for CSS work, among other things, I was called for quite a few interface design and web designer positions. It's been a while since I had been job hunting prior to this, so I hadn't really given much thought as to my position title. Afterall, I don't usually pay attention to my title at the places I work even, as they are often made up by Human Resources or other people who don't know the technology much less have any rhyme or reason to them. So "web developer," "software developer," "software engineer," "programmer," etc., (with an optional designation of 1-4 or 1-5) - it doesn't matter to me as long as I am getting paid according to my experience and doing what I like to do, which basically comes down to utilizing my array of skills and having some input into the decision making process on the project.
Back to the topic at hand though. I usually just refer to myself as a "web/application developer." Six years ago I would never have considered myself a "web designer" or a designer at all. Sure, I've been using CSS since the early days (Netscape 4) and Photoshop since version 3, when it came on floppy disks, and have an art background, but I do not have the raw artistic talent and I am generally just not creative on demand (in the artistic sense).
Yet, after hearing all of the types of jobs I was being contacted about, and was actually qualified for, I began to accept the title of web designer for two reasons. First, CSS is how you implement design these days, afterall, and I've gotten pretty good with my CSS layout skills and making them extremely modular. Second, a web designer is simply someone who designs sites and who understands (and respects, IMO) the medium. It has always peeved me when "designers" - who, in light of this discussion, I would now call "graphic designers" instead of "web designers" - push the boundaries without considering the web as a medium and the consequences of their actions on that medium or the landscape of users out there.
In broad terms, considering the web as a medium means understanding the basics of usability and accessibility. These areas span designing for different people and different devices (with different resolutions and various levels of support for underlying web technoligies such as HTML, JavaScript, Flash and more). Wow, those are some broad qualifications for a web designer, who several years ago was traditionally focused on making the site look pretty with graphics. But in reality, a web designer needs to be well-rounded and versed in these areas as well as capable of implementing a design in modern standards-based methods. Without those skills, the person is merely a graphic designer, or perhaps less than spectacular web designer.
Sure, a web designer should ideally be an excellent graphic designer as well. I would consider that to be my weakness, but not a major one, as I'm not a bad graphic designer at any rate. Many techniques (and trends), such as the web 2.0 "style," can cover up a weakness in graphic design. On the other hand, a good graphic designer can screw up a site's design from a usability and accessibility standpoint even if they aren't the ones implementing the final design to code, simply because there are more things to take into account than how a site looks. Functionality over aesthetics; I may be biased since I am also a web developer, but that is certainly the proper order for both web sites and applications in my opinion. Anyone who will tell you otherwise has never been concerned with form abandonment rates, response/conversion rates, completion rates, or other performance metrics and will likely tell you user training will fix it!
To beat a dead horse a little further, I came across this article entitled "On Creativity" by Andy Rutledge on A List Apart while mapping out my own article (that you're reading). I thought Andy's angle complimented my thoughts on the matter quite well, and he explicitly goes into the web as a medium as well as the role and perceptions of creativity in design. Here's an excerpt:
The siren song of creativity is likely responsible for more bad design than any other factor. Some might think this overly dramatic, but I believe we should regard creativity as a rather dangerous tool. Like a firearm, it should be treated with caution and respect, and used professionally only by trained individuals.
If you are a designer worth your salt, you know that no design project begins with creativity. Instead, it begins with client- and/or context-specific discovery, and lots of research to help you understand the fundamental nature of the challenges at hand. All designers must guard against the urge to invest in specific creative ideas before becoming intimately familiar with the contextual landscape of a design project.
Sadly, creativity is often used as a crutch, or as a surrogate for design competence. Some individuals reveal themselves as clinging to this practice when they complain that some client work prevents them from “being creative.” What they mean here is that they dislike not being allowed to express themselves. But design competence has little to do with self-expression, and creativity is no substitute for knowledge or comprehensive understanding. Instead, design is most significantly founded on the comprehensive understanding and greatly developed empathetic/sympathetic sense that highly skilled and disciplined individuals bring to bear.
The article goes on to make a number of additional valid and valuable points, but it is quite lengthy as well, much like my own article has become.
Reading those points validated my self-worth as a web designer just a little more, knowing that my primary weakness of creativity on demand is not the Achilles' heel that I sometimes feel it is. In fact, on more than one occasion, I've begun coding the actual application only to "skin" it later with CSS and graphics, usually progressively as I am developing and as I see a need and get inspired. This is often very easy to do using a combination of modular CSS and server-side templates. That's progressive enhancement - a term usually reserved for development - in its truest form. Of course, it also doesn't go over with clients very well, as they often can't get past the visual aspects of a site in the first place.
To wrap things up, I think the distinction between graphic designer and web designer fits quite nicely. If you look at the other terms such as interface designer, interaction designer and user experience designer (or architect), they focus on one aspect of the site or experience. A graphic designer does just that - focuses on graphics - where a web designer focuses on the web as a medium and understands design within those boundaries, for lack of a better word.
So where does that leave me and my title? I don't really care, but I will still call myself a "web/application developer" because that's primarily what I'm getting paid to do, and "web developer" can still encompass the CSS aspects as far as I'm concerned. Plus, "web/application designer/developer" just looks too wishy-washy. In that case I'd have to go with "Coldfusion/SQL/XHTML/CSS web/application designer/developer." :-)
On a side note, some companies and recruiters also differentiated "Web developer" from "software developer," where a web developer is considered and HTML/front-end person, which is my reasoning behind using "web/application developer."
Nice article. You need to add JavaScript/Ajax to your job title. The more buzzword acronyms the better.