graphicpush

A lot of the blame needs to fall on the browser application developers (ahem…Microsoft) who for many years enabled web “designers” to do whatever the hell they wanted on pages and they would still work.

Plus, there are so many ubiquitous garbage design tools out there that further enable hacks to be “web designers”, it’s difficult for those of us who like to live in Code View to be taken seriously for our craft.

In a perfect world we’d be able to slap some seal of approval on our websites. Unfortunately, how would we decide which designers are eligible and which aren’t? And who would decide this, how would we be sure it was fair?

Is the criteria design knowledge? Is it code? Is it information architecture skills? Is it educational background? We’re such a diverse field with so many specialties, it’s hard to pin down under one giant banner.

It won’t fix things when a system finally arises. There has to be a way to educate the client.

Right before the client makes his decision to either go with your ‘good work’, or go with the other guys ‘good price’, it would defiantly help to be able to mention to the them, “Oh, by the way, is your other choice qualified?”

But, again. I pretty much do this now, I tell clients all about web standards and sell them on it to only get a response like “We don’t care about that stuff.”

If that’s the case, why will a certification change things?

(But, don’t get me wrong, I am 100% for something!!)

Kevin,

I’ve been thinking about this very subject for the last couple of years. It is definitely something that the industry needs.

I think you would need separate specialized certifications rather than one big stamp of approval. For instance, I’m a strong front-end developer but a barely passable designer. So I would get the code-approved stamp and not the design-approved one.

As far as organizational structure goes, you would have to balance out the negatives of both types. The problem with completely volunteer-driven is that people are flaky and don’t often follow through without incentives. With an org funded by other large organizations ulterior motives and impartiality may come in to question.

All these things, and many more, would need to be thought through so people would be confident that there is a fair impartial approval system in place.

I would love to talk this over with you some more if you’re willing.

Certification is a very tough one indeed.

You’d need to re-certify every few months because the technology has moved on. Best practises aren’t really nailed down all that clearly, new techniques are being discovered all of the time and technology is constantly moving forward — and that’s just on the client side, where the underlying languages haven’t moved much in aeons. Now add AJAX and server-side tech to the equation; things move at lot faster there.

Who sets the standard? What happens if a designer is certified but subsequent work doesn’t meets the standard? Who enforces it? Is it enforced at all? At a national or international level? What does it cost? What happens to great designers who can’t afford to get certified?

That’s not to say I’m against the idea. There’s just a hell of a lot of practical problems.

@Michael Dick – I suspect if you’re getting a response like that, you’re not selling it in the right way. You need to pitch it in a way that’ll excite the client.

For example accessibility isn’t very exciting until you tell them and accessible site is likely to be a lot more search-engine friendly, which can lead to better ROI.

It might also help to target their niche — For instance, when selling to finance companies in the UK, relate web design best practises to Treating Customers Fairly: the regulator (the FSA) is very hot on that right now.

I think a certification has to be based on quantifiable criteria. If there’s anything subjective, the administering party comes into question. For this reason, it would not be design-related, as much as I want it to be; besides, a web designer’s portfolio already serves as a qualifier.

Even things such as usability and information architecture are too nebulous in definition. I think the focus would have to be on tactics and execution:

• Are the developer’s websites built with web standards?
• Is the markup semantic versus presentational?
• Are accessibility provisions made within the design and code?

Things like that. Because of this focus on markup and development, “designers” focused on the look and feel are largely out of luck. What I think is a good design, others despise.

Certification has its drawbacks as well. There are already certified” web designers that have done nothing more than pass a Dreamweaver class. Slapping a seal or logo won’t solve the problem, in my opinion. I’ve seen web design studios blow the W3C horn on their site, and still build sites using templates. They’re only use of CSS is to style text.

Unfortunately, the onus falls on us to properly educate clients on WHY web standards, good architecture and content, and quality design are important. I’ve had more luck explaining to people about how to improve SEO and how all the above affect their users and their company’s reputation. When potential clients get it, they see the difference of going with “cheap” sites and spending a little more on quality.

One step in the right direction would be to talk clients OUT of antiquated content management systems. Oftentimes, these dinosaurs are the guilty party when it comes to presentational mark-up. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve had to “hack” CMS’ systems simply to remove in-line styles placed there by “the caring developers” of the CMS.
Word to all CMS creators: if I have to hack your CMS to remove markup, it’s not a hack, it’s a fix.

Certification? 90% of my clients are morons. They know everything. They have marketeers to think for them. In their mind this will sound like give me more money, because i am certified professional. Guess what will happen next.

The lowest bidder wins.