While I welcome the sentiment behind the post and the arguments are on point, the language used sounds condescending and out of touch with the current design conversation.
I mean, think about it. If you're speaking to designers that face problems the hard way and strive to make life better for users, it sounds condescending: product designers (i.e. most of DN) already know all of this, no need to repeat it.
If you're speaking to designers that “want to become Sagmeister”, it sounds really aggressive:
If you want to have an impact, be that kind of designer. Work with companies doing that kind of work.
And maybe then they’ll stop asking you to make PowerPoints.
Seriously? Chill, dude.
It's nice that you're writing about things your audience might not know about, but you really don't need to treat them like idiots for not knowing it before-hand.
I'm trying to offer positive feedback and I believe there's nothing wrong with the content itself — I just find the overall tone of the article unnecessarily aggressive.
There's a place for Sagmeister's work as much as there's a place for whatever Mojotech does. Each designer has different strengths and weaknesses. Can't we all just get along?
When we're young, we aspire to what we see as glitzy and interesting (just ask engineers if video games inspired them to learn to code). As we are exposed to more and more problems, we find interests in those, because exposure leads to diversity of opportunities.
The advice I'd give to any designer still in school, or just starting their career is to look for opportunities to be exposed to as many different industries and problem-sets as rapidly as possible, until you find the thing that sticks.
Also, don't diss Powerpoints until you've worked for these badasses
Duarte are badasses!
Perhaps instead of graphic/web/ui/ux designers we need more service designers.
What kind of designer are we talking about here? UI designers? Graphic designers? Print makers? Sculptors?
"We lost sight of the fact that design is holistic." Who did? Not anyone I know working in as UX/UI designers. What needs to be holistic about designing a magazine cover?
Thank you for taking the time to come down off your high horse for a moment to enlighten the stupid peasants.
This is self-serving content marketing at its worse. You offer absolutely no advice for actual designers to define and fight for a design process at work.
Design is more than how it looks yeah... we get that. The problem I have with this mantra is 1) discounting the role aesthetics play in the use of a product/service, both functionally and emotionally, is a bit self-defeating and 2) the biggest challenges for design aren't that people don't want to invest in it or listen, but that the very process itself is loosely define, often without clearly defined measurement. Lastly should design even really live outside of product?
Talk more about that.
If you want to be taken seriously, solve all the human, design and business problems you come across to the best of your ability and prove value. That even means all he trivial bullshit that a business may ask of you. Ideally, I'd always be solving difficult experience and design problems, but you know, sometimes the business needs me to build the best powerpoint possible.
True. Sometimes reality (business, money, survival) makes us go on this path simply because we don't have a choice. I really can't wait for the Basic Income initiative to take off :)
Ahhhhh yes. Another "designers don't just make things pretty" article. We already have like 3,000 of these on Medium, do we really need another?
BTW, you have no idea what you are talking about. Dieter Rams was in fact highly concerned with the visual aesthetic (ie. prettiness) of his products.
He obsessively used the principles of symmetry, balance, contrast, repetition and negative space to create objects that fit in within what the modernism movement considered to be beautiful. In no way were any of his product designs strictly functional or utilitarian endeavors. See his "10 principles for good design." Number 3: Good design is aesthetic.
Humans are not efficiency-optimizing robots. We react emotionally to aesthetics. Therefore a designer who ignores aesthetic beauty is not taking a human-centric approach. Period.
No one is saying it shouldn't be pretty if there is a clear context and rational thinking behind the design solution which in most cases, there is non.
I don't think I've ever read a single article about design that has argued for not putting rational thinking behind a design solution.