Absolutely ridiculous - this is a basic protectionist racket to make it harder for people to enter the field. Compete on quality and price, Mike Monteiro, not credentials.
I completely agree. This is grandiose and absurd. Further, some licensing programs are abused by firms who have market control to keep out new entrants.
I like a lot of what Monteiro says, but I completely disagree with this. It's complete overreach.
Yep. Even if the motives are good, that will be the end result.
Knowing how Mike speaks, I wouldn't be surprised if he framed it like this just to spark a debate in hopes of getting more people to think about the power and responsibility that designers have.
I think, to a large degree, this is the likeliest explanation. I think he does truly believe what he says, but I also believe he knows it's a fool's errand that will not end well for anyone. Not that I mind the idea, but from a practicality standpoint, it's likely unfeasible. There are far too many people practicing graphic design, or involved with the design industry in ways that are harmful, that simply shouldn't be.
Typical silicon valley self-absorbed bullshit.
What about the CEOs, product/project managers, and other business people who help define what many tech designers work on? Considering how much disagreement there is in the tech industry about what is actually damaging to society, who determines what the designers are taught for this license?
Is it now up to the designers alone to call out the companies they work for for bad practices? Will the license help you not get fired in those cases?
Is it just me or do these articles always seem to miss half the conversation? Tech is not JUST design.
fun game: try and find any of mike monteiro's/mule's work online
does this guy actually work or does he just talk?
That's the case with a lot of senior, well-known, influencer-type designers, though. Isn't it possible to disagree with his point without trying to invalidate his career?
i'd like to do both
not to mention this ridiculous idea would potentially invalidate hundreds, maybe thousands of careers
Normally I would agree with not invalidating a point because of a career—however he is making bold claims about designers and legislating their career paths. So, why is he an official on this? His experience in these matters would be relevant. Facebook and Google do not hire recklessly, and designers are only one voice in a chorus of decision makers. So many things are fundamentally wrong about product design with this thesis.
Of course, I'm sure he'd say: "Sure, then make everyone require a licence—CEO, designer, copy writer alike! Why not!?" The person willing to impose state controls on others willy-nilly will invariably be cool going back to that well again and again. It's OK because he's a smart guy! They THINK about stuff.
Every time I read a Mike Monteiro article it's ultimately about Mike Monteiro and his god complex. His punk rawk corporatism brand has snake oil salesman written all over it.
I mean, there's case studies right on their website.
case studies where tho? if they're there i couldn't find them
Even if it didn't exist, do you not think it's valuable to have critiques/thinkers on designers who aren't designers? Every other industry seems to welcome their opinion ;)
critique is healthy and essential as long as it is thoughtful and earnest – but not all critics have worthwhile opinions.
Completely agree - I just don't feel doing hands on design work should be thought of as a pre-requisite to being a valuable critic.
He’s making the master persuader move, sucking all the energy out of the room and moving people’s attention using hyperbole to his business.
Winning bigly, isn't he?
If he executes well, he might.
I like that this sparks a good conversation.
We all agree something is very wrong in tech right now - Darkpatterns, too much secret data, bias, exclusion, etc.
If our industry doesn't regulate ourselves and fight against these things, push to design fairly putting user first, then what do we do?
I think this is what he is getting at. If you don't like his answer then its time we self-regulate and start making ethical choices for users before thing get out of hand and we get caught or its abused.
I think actual regulation would be better than licensing or self-regulation.
Ditto. If anything it would change the atmosphere and discussion. Speaking up during a meeting you might get shot down but after some regulations and news rounds, everyone will be on board I think.
Yep, not only that, but this isn’t a design or designer issue. It’s industry wide. Having licensed designers wouldn’t change much.
The reality is that GDPR and other legislation should help. That’s the kind of thing that’s needed.
Agreed. Designers can't go it alone. We still have the responsibility to speak up and for what comes past our desk.
I think this is where Mike is pushing things but his arguments tend to be over-the-top with the intent to spark debate.
I think we need to start looking at developing, or adding to, risk management processes for what we create. We need to be cognizant of those risks whether they are benign or not. We all thought Facebook was fairly benign, but now, it can reshape the world. We recognized the power of social media during the Arab Spring, but brushed it off, thinking, hey, this is moving global society in a better direction. Except now it's obvious, it can be used for more nefarious purposes.
I think we need to be wary of the days of rapid development, test, and push to public now. We need to maybe approach it from a Waterfall perspective at times again. I don't mean go away from it, but, just take a little bit more time to evaluate our decisions and the intent of our work.
We should continually evaluate first, second, and third order effects of our decisions, which can be difficult to detect, and take time. But it should be part of our research and evaluation processes.
You started the list, but how can we verify if dark patterns, bias, exclusion, or fatal risks are in our design? Or just if someone can game the algorithm to increase virality of their influence operations/fake news.
Engineering of all kinds goes through a risk mitigation process (or at least should), how can we contribute or take ideas from that? Since an increasing number of us work with increasingly complex and/or impactful systems.
Agreed. You are very right but since the industry Isn't now, how do we make sure it happens? Thats the main issue here.
Enforcing it industry wide would be difficult, but I think it just starts with conversations, Medium articles, podcasts, since enough people seek that info. Then those people share with their peers that don’t engage.
Risk management will look different and need to be different for each company. We have a process for my projects, but it’s mainly due to our products need to work right away and have rigorous testing.
"'I’m a UX designer and I deal in privacy,' and all of a sudden you find yourself working at Facebook working on exactly that stuff."
Yup, when I hired designers at Facebook we just trusted someone saying they were a UX designer and then all of a sudden they were working on Facebook. We just grabbed randos off the street.
As it turns out, maybe you should have found the ones with some privacy experience after all.
For what it's worth, I've been having a pretty interesting discussion with him on Twitter over the article.
Wow. His logic makes no sense and is basically the definition of false equivalency.
I thought he'd left Twitter "for good"?
My comment from the last time this bullshit idea was posted here.
"You've got to be fucking kidding me? So what about all the self-taught designers and visionaries with little to no education? Academia would love this, then we can have design fraternities and nepotism will be the only way to get a job. Not to mention most designers from HCI programs have TERRIBLE visual skills, little vision, and virtually no intuition. HARD NO"
Designers who came in via universities and HCI programs love this Idea but they aren't pushing the industry, they aren't pushing intuitive design, they aren't pushing divergent thinking. They're trying to make design formulaic, they're also trying to kill visual design. Design is basically usable and communicative art with implications on technology, don't let a bunch of rich kids who aren't artists come in and push licensing on design in hopes of removing the art aspect from design. We aren't doctors, we aren't scientists, we're fucking artists and rich kids from the world of academia need to stop trying to control the world of design knowing they're not artists. It's almost like they're trying to limit competition, and douche bags from Harvard know they can't compete with actual artists.
Already covered in length here - https://www.designernews.co/stories/92085-should-we-license-designers