How to hire designers

A great product that solves a problem that no one needs - fails. An ugly product that solves a real problem can be successful.

A post explaining some issues on the article " Dribblification of Designers "

There is a vicious circle of design misunderstanding.

For years, the importance of good design in software development was underestimated and remained misunderstood. Designers around the world complained that the development department simply orders to visually embody those ideas that have already been approved by someone else. They ironically called themselves "monkeys with Photoshop." They were constantly in search of new jobs and new teams. They knew that what they had to do was not design.

Many people have been working over the years to overcome this misunderstanding, to explain that design is not just what it looks like. This is how something works. Best of all, Steve Jobs said:
')

“Most people make mistakes in imagining a design as a visual representation of an object. They think that this is an external gloss - that designers are given a box and say “do it beautifully”. We think that this is not design. This is not only how it looks and feels. This is how it works. ”

Slowly but surely, software companies began to see that those who put good design at the forefront are overtaking the rest. An obvious example is Apple.

This understanding has led to an increase in the number of job designers, and an increase in the number of companies that understand the importance of good design. At the same time, these companies did not quite clearly understand what they needed — this was new to them. Therefore, they went to sites like Dribbble in search of "good designers." But Dribbble does not give an idea of ​​a good design. And here he is, a vicious circle:


-> Dribbble is dominated by conversations and assessments of design skills -> recruiters judge design by portfolio -> designers who are looking for work, create profiles on Dribbble -> young designers conclude that Dribbble is what is most important in design -> see point one

As a result of the work of this circle, designers do not develop their skills, because it reinforces the wrong opinion about design as a purely aesthetic discipline. Therefore, recruiters hire visual designers, expecting them to be good product designers, which is not happening.

Visual design does not exist in a vacuum

In previous articles I mentioned four levels of design:
- the desired result of the design;
- development of necessary components;
- detailed interactions;
- appearance.

I believe that these levels do not exist separately. Good designers understand all four, and top visual designers understand how to develop very good interactions. In my experience of working with designers, several people were well-versed in one or two levels, and were good at the rest. If you have the opportunity to develop at all four levels, then the total result will be greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Evaluate designers in relation to the level of design you need.

When hiring designers, I usually look for people whose work is very good on two levels, and who are eager to learn about the other levels. Recently, I used this pattern for searches:



Vertically - the quality of the designer (outstanding / competent / knows the basics).
Horizontal - design levels (work result / system development / interaction / appearance).

At a minimum, visual designers should fit this pattern:



Before you say "we need a designer!", Think - and what designer do you need? A start-up product-oriented startup CEO will have requests different from the CEO who is focused on finance and analytics. By the way, if you want to have everything at once, then such designers are incredibly rare:

You cannot separate visual and interaction design.

They are intertwined. Loops, state changes, data changes. How something looks, should be subject to how something works. If you are a visual designer who wants to develop at the interaction level, I recommend the book Dan Saffer " Microinteractions "

Some say that once the appearance first attracts people, the visual level is the most important. I do not think so. Visual design is very important, but people are also attracted by a certain value of the product - something that it can give them at a higher level than just appearance. We are constantly confronted with ugly products that have become successful ( Craigslist ), and beautiful products that have not taken off ( Color ). Beautiful things lure people, but people will not stay if the thing is not worked out for beauty. All levels are critical.

Dribbble is what it represents, because it is used as much as you call it.

Many people support Dribbble and say that this is a "showcase site", "twitter for designers", "a place for design not constrained by the limitations of the real world." But for me, all this does not make sense. If this is a place to discuss work in the process, why then there are few sketches and so many completed works. If this is a place to look for visual inspiration, then it’s more art than design, and it’s pointless to look for designers there. Great artists - yes, designers - no.

The best description of the service that I have seen is the type of portfolio, advertising that attracts recruiters to your site.

If you are popular on Dribbble, this does not make you a great designer yet

There are truly amazing designers and examples of work that do not focus on the visual layer alone. But these are exceptions. Basically, a typical portfolio is proof that you are fluent in graphical software, understand modern trends in visual design, and in some cases are fluent in one of the four levels of design.

We only need to break the vicious circle.

I don't care about Dribbble or any other site with a portfolio. I’m worried about breaking the cycle. Excites that novice designers do not meet with the true power of great design. So that they are not hired for work that they cannot cope with, so that they do not develop useless products to anyone, and do not come up with incomprehensible interactions. So that companies investing in design do not fail because they do not know what they need. I’m talking about the education of designers, and first of all - about the idea that design is how a thing works, not how it looks.