Hacker News Reader

Comment by shalmanese | Hacker News Reader

I'm immensely skeptical. I think it's only true insofar as you redefine "great developer" as being someone who can pump out the same kind of CRUD app really really quickly and redefine "great designer" as being someone who can add a degree of visual polish and refinement to that same kind of CRUD app.

The tools have made it such that it's now much, much easier to get enough competence at both to ship profitable product but what it hasn't done is made any easier the essential complexity of both design and engineering.

View on HN

Great designers have a bunch of skills. Content strategy, interaction design, information architecture, user research, typography, etc.

Where does "great developer" sit. Can you have an individual who is genius level at operations, scaling, databases, machine learning, front-end development, game AI, automated testing, etc. etc?

Nobody, or only a very, very, few extraordinarily talented individuals, are great at everything in development. Ditto for design. People have preferences and specialities.

Why not pick from both baskets?

Design and development are both complicated. However, in some places (e.g. figuring out what people need, requirements gathering, etc.) they are complicated in the same kind of way. In other places (spotting patterns, simplifications, etc.) they involve similar sorts of skills.

The real problem is with the labels "designer" and "developer". They're not "real" things. They're reifications. They're arbitrary labels we apply to certain communities of practices.

I'm very happy in my career and skillset - which involves chunks from the dev camp and chunks from the design camp. I'm not a unicorn. I don't know everything. My visual design skills are pretty lousy for example. But I am expert in some things in both design and development. Like the OP I find that there is often a synergy between those skill sets. Some bits from my "design" world make me a much more effective developer. Some bits from my "developer" world make me a much more effective designer.

The split between the domains is a false one IMHO - and fortunately many more folk seem to be realising that.

> Great designers have a bunch of skills. Content strategy, interaction design, information architecture, user research, typography, etc. Where does "great developer" sit.

Pretty much at "person who has spent the same amount of time at acquiring skills as the 'great designer' has at theirs".

I am both a designer and a developer, and the central point of the article is very true - design vs development is a false dichotomy.

The problem is that people confound "design" with "artistic styling". Real design is at its essence a left-brain activity - whereas successful art evokes emotion, successful design communicates a message. The practice of design is about communicating something to a group of people, in a way that is repeatable and quantifiable, it should be more science than art.

The basic tenets of design are quite simple, anyone can pick it up. I've tried convincing the developers around me to give it a go, but the most common response has been "I'm a techie, I won't be good at art, thus I won't even try". The same kind of thinking that causes the imbalance of women in STEM fields. We should all try to broaden our horizons, I think many developers would be surprised at their design skills if they could only break through their bubble.

Design is neither art, science, or engineering, rather it is...design! Everyone practices design in some aspect of their job, which is developed mostly through experience.

Design is about communication, and science invariably involves design, but they aren't otherwise very equivalent. Nor is design equal to art, though some art activities involve design and vice versa.

As a researcher, I've practiced much more design than development, and would definitely go the IxD path rather than the SDE path if I ever left research. I've never felt like I was actually doing science.

Polymaths, a.k.a. renaissance men, do exist.

To me, it actually seems absurd to claim that people can only be great in one thing.

Just because I'm a great developer doesn't mean it's the only thing I can be great in. I'm learning to be a great marketer as well, and so far it hasn't taken away from my programming skills.

To me, it actually seems absurd to claim that people can only be great in one thing.

The real problem is in thinking that "designer" and "developer" are things. They're not. They're a massive collection of skills, techniques, practices, etc. Two groupings of which we've drawn arbitrary circles around and applied the labels "designer" and "developer" too.

Those labels aren't real - we made them up. We can draw different circles around different groups of skills.

If we want to.

Guitar players who can also play drums are at a big advantage, just like composers who can write lyrics or sing. Graphic designers are often illustrators too, but copywriting, photo retouching and photography skills can also be very useful for a designer — and not every designer necessarily has them.

I've done hiring for designers at my company, and one of the things I've found is that good illustrators tended to be horrible at design.

Not sure why, just an interesting anecdote. I suspect different types of thinking are required for each, illustration is quite a bit closer to "art".

That's not something I've noticed in general - and I've done a lot of design hiring over the years. Think you might just have hit a bad batch ;-)

They exist, but they're extremely rare. Which just so happens to be the opposite of what the post claims.

Or they are relatively common, but not given credit due to preconceived notions about designers and developers? I have noticed that professionally, having worked on both sides, if I present myself as a designer, my development skills are immediately discounted, and vice-versa.

You still haven't proven that they are in fact common. You haven't proven, for example, that you're a good developer or a good designer. But I could certainly believe that there are lots of people who are mediocre in lots of things at once.

Likewise, there is no proof that they are uncommon. Given that the visual design of code is a core feature of writing maintainable code, in my opinion, I would argue that being a good developer requires one to be a good designer.

But that raises the question of how do we even begin to measure greatness? On the developer side, is a programmer who can pump out reasonably bug-free CRUD apps with speed a good programmer, or does it take someone who can implement a Helmholtz machine on a microcontroller to be good programmer? Perhaps you have to invent brand new CS concepts to achieve greatness? Or maybe the aforementioned ability to write maintainable code is what defines a good programmer? Something else entirely? Consider similar parallels for what defines a great designer.

As far as the article is concerned, a great developer or designer seems to be someone who is good enough to hire. That makes things easier to prove. With that said, most people working in industry, whether they have cross-domain skills or not, are mediocre at best, but they are still exceedingly good when compared to the general public.

There's a whole field called creative computing that is chock full of these types of unicorns.

Memo Atken is one, http://memo.tv/ John Maeda etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com