The Case for Design Engineers, Pt. III - Jim Nielsen

Not only do I identify with this series of posts by Jim, but the latest one reflects the hot potato process of designing / making that I’ve used on a project this week.

I’ve been working on a new ecommerce site design (which I’m building at the same time). I created a static mock to explore the styling of product cards, but when I started building the HTML & CSS, I found there were improvements that could be made to the layout and spacing in the production medium compared to my static design. I made those changes, and those in turn will be rolled back into future static mocks. Design is an iterative, non-linear process. As Jim points out:

But the creative process is not an assembly line. Complications and in-process revisions are something to be embraced, not feared, because they are an inherent part of making.

Jim Nielsen, The Case For Design Engineers, Pt. III

In my opinion, the iterative approach to design applies to any size and scope of site - whether it’s a simple landing page, or a full blown web application. If you lock yourself in to a production line methodology, where a design is signed off and can’t be changed during production, you’re not going to be able to adapt when you find opportunities during the production.

Conversely, you can see the incredible risk of narrowly-defined roles in the creation process. If what was planned on paper doesn’t work in reality, you’re stuck. Or if a new, unforeseen meaning arises, you can’t take advantage of it because you’re locked in to an assembly line process which cannot be halted or improvised.

Jim Nielsen, The Case For Design Engineers, Pt. III