Discuss further in the
Member's Forums

He makes many good points, but doesn't do himself any favours with the graphic design community by arguing that interaction 'architects' should avoid the title 'designer.'

http://www.asktog.com/columns/057ItsTimeWeGotRespect.html

Small excerpt below (guaranteed to get you going)...

"First, titles we shouldn't use...
...I have worked with people highly sympathetic to interaction design who have recoiled in horror at my suggestion they actually hire an interaction designer. They have told me flat-out they could not hire such a 'designer' because their engineering-trained executives would not allow squandering company money on such "soft" people when they could hire another engineer. Besides, they already had a graphic designer to make things pretty (if unusable) ... 'Designer' is perceived by the predominantly male population of both computer company management and engineering as a wimp word. It's unfair and, I believe, sexist, but that's the way it is."

Spotted by Robert Black, our tireless AGDA webmaster

Editor's Note: Yet another attempt to 'brand' the professional respect issue out of existence. My personal prediction: it won't work (although I give them points for trying)! Money is the universal language of business, so don't get hung up on your title - prove the value of your work to your clients!. PS. If any of you have the urge, why not make your view known at the discussion group listed in the article?

"I want to keep this conversation going, so here's a rather long post in response to both the first article and Ben's reply:

Firstly, I'd be the first to agree that a tertiary course guarantees nothing to the graduate, especially in the way of tactile, practical skill. Both self-respect and respect within the industry will only come after years of proving that you know your stuff.

But here's something I've noticed while perusing this site: There is a general attitude expressed in many posts that a designer's peer group should consists mainly of other designers. This attitude is fine if we practice our craft for our own benefit, but in the commercial world, it can be quite debilitating to a designer's practical development, and often leads to an overblown idea of one's own importance in the industry as compared to other positions in the commercial design sector, such as printers, directors, and sales consultants, without whom most designers would not have a career to sustain themselves.

We have to make a concerted effort to relate to industry colleagues other than just fellow designers, especially those colleagues who both generate work for us and process that work to its end stage (as a publication, product and so on), because it is those people with whom we must interact successfully to produce a quality end-product, and for whom we are expected to provide an efficient, competent service.

For this reason, and because there are so many diverse tasks that a designer may or may not be capable of executing, we should be making some effort to clarify exactly what it is that we do.

As someone who has very little to do with other designers on a day to day basis, but has built 15-year career on clear, practical communications with printers, publishers and manufacturers, I can say with full confidence that the title "graphic designer" means, in the words of one manager, "absolutely jack s-t" to these people.

In our industry's laziness, we have allowed this title to encompass the following job descriptions:

VISUAL DESIGNER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
LAYOUT ARTIST
FINISHED ARTIST
PREPRESS ARTIST
DESIGN MANAGER
ART DIRECTOR
CREATIVE DIRECTOR
COMPOSITOR
DESKTOP PUBLISHER
SIGN-WRITER
WEBSITE DEVELOPER

.and others I can't think of right now.

All vastly different tasks, and in most cases only few of which make up the skills of any one designer. And yet we casually adobt the title of "graphic designer" and expect both our industry colleagues and potential clients to know which of these services we provide.

I'm not advocating - as Ben has implied - that we deliberately assume a title that serves to alienate the general public. I am simply suggesting that if we are to adopt more suitable titles, then such titles should serve to assist our colleagues and clients in discerning what services they can expect from one designer to another.

Whether or not the general public can discern our skills is not relevant, until such time as they become potential clients.

I've stopped calling myself a graphic designer, because I'm tired of being met with blank, embarrassed stares at parties when I tell someone what I do for a living. I've adopted "commercial artist", or as a compromise "commercial designer". I prefer the former, simply because that's what my profession was called when I entered the industry. And while it's not a glamorous title, it is one that is still held with a good deal of respect among industry colleagues.

Fellow designers don't like the title apparently, but then I don't derive my income from fellow designers. More to the point, I'm in direct competition with them."

"As the editor quite rightly said: "Prove the value of your work." You don't earn the title of graphic designer or you don't become a professional just by going to Uni. Plenty of brilliant designers aren't trained. Plenty of crap ones are. You don't 'retain' respect - you attain it and you prove you're worth $157ph by punching out great design and understanding your clients and your client's clients needs.

You also don't gain respect by charging design rates for desktop publishing work - clients know the difference and that's why dtp's get work. I hire designers when I need design, likewise with dtp. I don't see it as undercutting.

Arguing about titles is simply semantics; creating a name that can only be understood by your peers is ludicrous.

But if you want to alienate both the general public and "those who would infiltrate our ranks" don't stop to wonder why you aren't understood or respected.

Graphic designer is fine, it could be worse - politician, journalist, parking ticket inspector..."

"At the risk of alienating myself, I have to agree that " designer" is a title that does little justice to many in our own profession - not only for its immediate intimation of "someone who sticks the frilly stuff on", but more because it has come to represent the growing number of desktop-publishers who use the title falsely to legitimise themselves among peers, leaving the more experienced and legitimate members of the profession cringeing.

Two things we need to do in our professional community:

1) Decide on titles for ourselves - depending on our area of expertise - that are held with respect within our associated industries (eg: Commercial Artist, etc), as opposed to adopting a title that is vague (ie: Graphic Designer) and designed to appeal only to the general community, that doesn't give a toss in any case.

2) Alienate those who would infiltrate our ranks without first earning the title. Yes, I know that's a hairy one. But there's a hell of a lot of 'designers' out there who should go back to bartending, and they're the ones who make it hard for the rest of us to retain either respect or healthy wage increases."

Return to Observations

AGDA Members: Discuss this article in AGDA's Business Forum.

andrew@lam-po-tangcom