|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: January 15, 2003 From Fluff to Functional: Dotcom Titles Evolve: 'As for information architects -- often user-interface experts involved in determining how Web sites are organized -- companies may no longer see a pressing need for such expertise. In fact, these ambiguous titles -- unfamiliar to CEOs and other higher-ups -- may play a role in who suffers from layoffs, Claus suggests: "If they can't figure out what you do, are you more likely to be cut?"' (MadMan comments: IAs are often user interface experts? Hmmm...)
Reader Comments...
Nice catch MadMan. I liked this part of the article: Doffing expresses skepticism about the Web producer title. "They couldn't code, they couldn't sell, and they just sort of orchestrated the process," he says. "They're content editors. I would bet that nine out of 10 people who held the title of Web producer no longer hold it." ...couldn't code. Ouch! On the one hand, both of these points are true. IAs and usability folks done generally code or sell. "Kill 'em all!" On the other hand, CEOs don't code or sell either. Draw your own conclusions. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 15, 2003 09:43 AM
I thought the jump from "orchestrated the process" to "content editor" was interesting. I expected them to go with "Project Manager". It seems like historically there has always been a role in between end users, programmers, and business folks. Call it project manager, business analyst, producer, strategist, whatever...but I don't see the need or the percieved need for that role going away anytime soon. Posted by: Boyink on January 15, 2003 10:03 AM
I would classify most of the people I see on WebWord as either Programmers or Designers. End Of Story. You can call a Designer an 'Organic To Digital Lever Designer' or you can call a Programmer a 'Symbolic instruction Architect', but there are only two differentations that I make about computery people. You are either a person who 'talks about how you should do it', or you are a preson that 'does it'. Posted by: Mac on January 15, 2003 10:33 AM
Interesting, as I don't put myself into either one of those categories. I've been a programmer - and still do some coding, and I do some design work, I wouldn't put either of those on my business card. Of course, "design" can be construed as just about anything (and I've already suffered through the debate on Sigia-L, thank you very much...;) Posted by: Boyink on January 15, 2003 11:09 AM
Design: the act of working out the form of something If you take some personal responsibility for what you do then you are a designer, because you are putting something of yourself into your work, rather than just following a process by rote. Posted by: Mac on January 15, 2003 12:06 PM
Yep - sounds about as vague as the discussion on Sigia-L. Under that definition the factory production worker who looks for ways to decrease his physical input to a process would be considered a designer? Posted by: Boyink on January 15, 2003 01:08 PM
And what's wrong with the example you've given? You don't have to 'do design' 24 hours a day to be a designer. If we can discuss what a designer is, then perhaps we discuss why usability testers aren't designers, and if we need 57 varieties of full time designers?
Nothing wrong with it - except that the line worker probably wouldn't want it, and it wouldn't adequately communicate their role in the company when someone asks "what do you do"?. I'm guess I'm really only interested in this subject from the aspect of what terms best communicate (in a cocktail party or elevator pitch context) the value I can provide to potential customers. If they relate to "Designer" the most, then a Designer I'll be.
I like your basic categories as a starting point, Mac, but I would want to have a few sub-categories to further define abilities. I am kind of middle-of-the-road when it comes to my specialization. I can do a lot of things, but am really good at one or two. It seems to me that the plethora of titles comes out of people specializing even further than that. Also, I see a bit of crossover - for instance, the guys on my team who are programmers don't just follow a spec. They contribute heavily to the design by suggesting alternatives or identifying new avenues. On the other hand, I do no programming whatsoever, I just try to understand it enough so I can make my blueprints easier to implement. I think usability testers (who aren't involved in the design end) fall in the area of QA. Happily, I see design, QA, and programming as being more interconnected than ever before (though I'm sure others would hotly debate this) and when it is good, it's really good. I'm with Boyink, though, on adapting to the situation. For my side work, I have three different business cards and pitches, depending on what the client wants. When I define myself generally, I say that I design interfaces for software programs and websites. I would personally further define design as being in the realm of graphics or information. If I merely identified myself as a designer, I think most people would think I am a graphic designer, which I'm not really that good at (I have terrible color sense, for one). Beyond that, I don't really differentiate much. Programming I might further define as object-oriented or traditional. I'd have to think about that one more.
Boyink? Is there a term that adequately defines what either one of us do? Really, I'm at a loss for that. Whenever I say, Usability Testing, I'm thinking, but no, I also gathered the user requirements and designed this thing, not to mention project managing it. Then when I say User Interface/Interaction Design, I'm thinking I also Usability Tested it... When I say Human Factors.. the ever so popular <(?)><(?)> eyes appear... I suppose I deal with developers and engineers who are not very familiar with the concept... Posted by: Berna on January 15, 2003 06:39 PM
"Problem solver" is a nice title. It covers designer, programmer and usability person. If you can convince people through your work "actions" that you are assiting improve a process and you are perceived this way - title is irrelevant. How can assist move the ball down the field towards "business profit" and demonstrate this on an ongoing basis? Posted by: daniel szuc on January 16, 2003 09:18 AM
Berna - no, I don't think there is. I currently get around this problem on my business card by putting "Principal" there. But it's still a struggle when I need to explain the services I can provide as a business. I like Daniel's "problem solver", but the challenge to me isn't proving value once engaged with a client, but explaining myself to a potential new client. It might well be that "web designer" is suffiently vague enough to cover all the activities you mention, but communicate enough specifics to potential clients to move the sales process along. For me, I'm about ready to start asking my current clients, or show them a list of titles and see what seems right to them as we're probably all overthinking the issue.
Boyink - I like your approach of asking the clients. As it's really good that they really have seen you in action, and know more or less what you do. You should be careful not to get biased answers, depending on the clients' backgrounds and their perspective on what you do or did.
I'm not really concerned with bias. I'm guessing that if an overwhelming percentage of my current clients choose the same words to describe what I do, then roughly the same percentage of potential clients would too. Regardless, I'd feel more comfortable basing things on their input - biased or not - than upon endless discussions of the nuances of design from within the web development community. Posted by: Boyink on January 16, 2003 02:30 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |