First misconception is that we don’t care at all about form or visual beauty, or that we think it doesn’t matter. When, in fact, I feel we understand how visual form and craft relates to, exists in, and affects its context.

Second is that we blindly follow our clients wishes. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Especially when “design thinkers” are so often trying to reframe the problems brought to them.

Third is that we think we have some sort of “precise methodologies and defined, quantifiable outcomes.” I have yet to meet a “design thinker” who thinks that some method or process will guarantee a certain outcome. We simply try to approach things holistically, thus want to make sure we’ve covered our bases.

In response my colleague stated that the problem with Poynor’s argument is that he is talking exclusively about designing THINGS (objects).

GK VanPatter would call this 1.0 or 2.0 design… At the level of PRODUCTS. This is why Poynor was talking about seeing the designs in a museum.

However, if one is designing services or transforming experiences, there is nothing TANGIBLE to put in the museum in the first place. All that may ‘exist’ is the strategy that was developed through design thinking.

So in the end, Poyner is talking about one thing (object design), but criticizing another (systems design). Since they are different, both arguments can be accepted.

Gabby, I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully respond to this article. As a someone who still works in the field of Graphic Design I agree that our spokespeople should be fired. We have too many gatekeepers who grit their teeth at anything that they feel threatens their job, position, or importance.

“Personally I think it is time for more visual designers to find their voice.”

Amen. And to the point of this post encouraging or discouraging visual designers it’s probably giving this blog too much credit. (as much as I think we’re giving blogging a good run for the money here)

Visual/Graphic designers play an incredibly important role in the design and creation of experiences/interactions. When I talk about the idea of “micro interactions” it means that every minute building block of an experience is critical. The visual design of the iPhone’s icons is just as important as the way they wiggle.

But really, visual designers don’t need an invitation to find their voice. They just need to do it. And doing it in a way that communicates to non-designers as well would probably serve them well.

I can hardly believe that there are still credible critics out there (Rick) who are still willing to take the design-is-not-for-the-unwashed masses side of the debate.

As I said in an earlier post defending personas, I’d like to see less posturing from the design community about purity in the design process, particularly that great designs exist only to uplift the human spirit and are somehow beyond the base world of commerce. A great design is great because it creates desire (just like a great ad campaign), not because it’s a work of art.

at Personally I don’t mind the tone of Rick’s piece.

Based on your review, your definition, and that of the Design Strategist, approaches design as a process in order to arrive at a solution:

“Design Strategists, on the other hand, are looking at design as problem solving–a way of thinking about and approaching situations in order to arrive at a solution.”

In his article, Mr. Poyner is definitely referring to design as something else, but what? After re-reading Poyner, I believe I found the answer to your assertion that “What is largely missing from Mr. Poyner’s piece is a single definition for design”.

To quote Mr. Poyner:

“Give me something tangible, something brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates our perception of what human life can be.”

The difference between your definition of design and Mr. Poyner’s is clear: you believe in process to create an end result and Mr. Poyner believes in nothing but the end result.

After thinking this through I now agree with Mr. Poyner and here’s why.

Your oversight was to assume Mr. Poyner was describing the end result as “visual” when in fact he defines the end result of design as the communication of passion.

After twenty-five years in marketing, most recently as Chief Marketing Officer for a sports equipment brand, experience has taught me that a focus on process guarantees nothing but a focus on process, at best resulting in a finite solution the same way the process of 1 plus 1 always results in 2. Only Mr. Poyner’s focus on passion stands a chance of creating an end result, a “customer experience”, that is equal to 3 or more.

Consider Apple, the pre-eminent “design” brand of today as the best defense of Mr. Poyner’s definition. Apple is the best expression of what Dori Tunstall refers to as “the inherent intelligence to beauty, which is about the depth and passion we feel for the world”. Apple isn’t driven by a design process, but by a passion to create things that are “insanely great”. It is this passion that drives all aspects of their brand and business. Apple could care less about process and solutions. They are solely focused on communicating passion to create the ultimate experience for their customers. Frankly, this is a far superior definition of design than your focus on process.

I’d like to address some of the specific comments you made about Mr. Poyner. Regarding your assertion that Mr. Poyner seems “awfully keen to keep everyone without a BFA out of the design clubhouse”, the fact is that any professional position requires specific training, including design. You apparently have had some training in your field. Regardless of how much training, you have more authority to speak on that subject than an untrained individual. This is Mr. Poyner’s point, not, as you claim, that “clients are dumb”. Clients aren’t dumb, but they aren’t qualified to speak or act as design professionals anymore than you can speak on finance, medicine, or any other field where you have absolutely zero training.

I’d also like to point out the liberties you’ve taken with Mr. Poyner’s comments regarding the customer’s experience.

You state:

“Most tellingly, nowhere does Poynor even glance in the direction of customer experience save to frame it as a burden on the souls of designers who he thinks have been branded as wanting to “impose their impractical excesses on long-suffering consumers whom they never trouble to consult. Unfortunately, he does nothing to refute the accusation”.

Here’s what Mr. Poyner wrote:

“Having written off designers as mere stylists with insufferable egos, whose sole aim is to impose their impractical excesses on long-suffering consumers whom they never trouble to consult, the way is clear for a new breed of intermediary to step up and take business’s hand. They might once have called themselves design consultants—the rhetoric is not so different—but today they are known as design thinkers and innovation experts.”

What Mr. Poyner describes here is obviously true, thanks to your review. I’m afraid you’ve damned your argument, and yourself, with your own ill-chosen words.

I think we all get where Mr. Poynor was coming from: defending the craft of visual design. It’s just that the piece veers into peevish, self-pitying territory which sucks all the power out of his argument.

I agree wholeheartedly that more designers should embrace the written word–it’s a darn shame that so few do. Why do you think that is, Kelly?

Matt made great points, all very informed. But to suggest that true innovation doesn’t come from leveraging constraints misses the point of design altogether. This, I believe, is the essence of the unidentified ‘gap’ — understanding which constraints to embrace and which ones to push back on.