Aaron, I feel that there are two types of people in the creative world: specialists and generalists. Specialists are those who are the very cream of their very specific crop (the Michael Beiruts, Matthew Carters and Joe McNallys of the world), whereas generalists do several things very well, or many things decently. The vast majority of creatives are probably generalists, and that’s a good thing, as sometimes a project calls for a different approach, and generalists will recognize that. However, the person they’ll go to for those executions will, more often than not, be the specialists, who can best execute the idea. Just as some people are destined to be obsessive compulsive and others a bit more freestyle, those who are predisposed to being a generalist should focus on learning as much as they can about many different subjects, whereas the specialists, while being aware of the benefits and limitations of other disciplines, should spend most of their time on their field of choice.

This is a pretty simplistic and narrow definition, but it’s how I see the creative world, and any successful studio or agency requires the complementary strengths of both in order to succeed. If jobs are advertising for those who can do a bit of everything, it’s likely because the position requires someone to do a bit of everything, and a specialist would be ill-suited to the role. However, that same specialist might excel in a larger agency, or as a freelancer, compared to a smaller shop where everyone has to pitch in on most projects.

There is no design or layout that cannot be properly articulated with good, semantic markup, CSS, and perhaps JS …and with a mind to usability and accessibility (in its various forms). I’m not sure where you’re getting the mistaken idea that there is some required limitation brought to the web by semantic markup, web standards, good usability, or accessibility, but those notions exist only in your own mind. You’re beating up a straw man.

What’s more, never forget that content on the Web is not merely for consumption by average-functioning human eyes. It is also for consumption by people with various physical and sensory challenges and for consumption by a host of technologies that must be able to understand what is presented and properly read, categorize, archive, and be referenced by other technologies and other humans (just as the ocean is not a flat, blue surface: most of the “content” is below the surface).

Rather than complain about the limitations you perceive, adjust your abilities to render those limitations–real or imagined–resolved, as others have done. Best of luck.

The movie and video game industry understand this and push it sometimes to the opposite extreme that pigeon holes certain artists from branching off into other areas. If you’re good at textures, you’re a texture guy and that’s all you’re likely going to do when the AD needs someone they can count on.

I really love this blog and your approach and sensibilities to design and professionalism. I’m interested in your opinion about this.

There are many interesting effects involving opacities and nested, floating DIVs, resizing windows and reflowing content, and hover states and mouse events– designers will only be able to take advantage of these if they understand some of the underlying code.

By way of context, I write code and my partner is a designer. I feel like this is an ideal division of labour, and we’ve made a point of the fact that he shouldn’t be constrained by perceived code limitations. It’s made me a better programmer. But just as I do my best to understand grids, type and colour theory, his base level knowledge of my work is crucial.

I have no doubt that web standards are immensely important; rather, I feel that sacrificing a more effective design for the sake of common usability (i.e. logos predominantly in the top left; navigation always at the top, etc.) is a step backwards, not a step forwards. The website in question (which I’ll edit the post with a link to later) had the logo in the upper right, and navigation on the bottom, below the content itself. However, because the content was short enough, it could all fit on one screen on the majority of screens, and it complemented the flow of the document quite well. In effect, it “read” like it was an HTML brochure instead of a conventional site, which was exactly the intent.

Is this a groundbreaking web site? Would this work for anything more complex than a two or three page site? Not likely, but it made me let go of some preconceived notions which I felt were holding me back in my own design work.