Speak Up is run with Six Apart’s 
In most U.S states you can’t be an architect, you can’t cut hair, you can’t be an electrical engineer, you can’t do about anything without some kind of official license.—from a recent Speak Up post
The discussion of certification and licensing of graphic designers hasn’t progressed much in the US since Ellen Shapiro’s July, 1993 Communication Arts article, “Certification for Graphic Designers? A Hypothetical Proposal,” and my January/February 1995 Print article, “The Case Against Certification.” (Both are reprinted in Looking Closer 2: Critical Writings on Graphic Design if you’re interested.) The idea still seems to have some appeal, though. The subject comes up frequently on Speak Up and anywhere else where graphic designers express our aggrieved condition.
This isn’t about whether the idea is vitally important or one of the seven stupidest things anyone has ever suggested. For question 1, assume that certification of US graphic designers will happen. For question 2, assume that licensing of graphic designers in the US will happen.
First some definitions:
Certification means that some group makes an affirmation of qualifications. That could involve portfolio reviews, written tests, background checks. . . you name it. Only people who are certified can claim to be certified but there are no restrictions on practicing and doing business for non-certified folk.
Licensing means a state law prohibits anyone from practicing unless they have met particular qualifications. You can't practice law, prescribe medicine, braid hair, operate a taxicab, or act as a building contractor most places unless you have a license.
Question #1: What should certification certify? What specific qualifications or skills should be demonstrated to be certified? Why? (No complaints about the impossibility of testing for talent, just what should be considered and why.)
Question #2: What should licensing allow? In other words, what specifically should unlicensed people be prohibited from doing?
No debating legitimacy of either certification or licensing. Just stick to answering what you think certification or licensing can or should be. Relevant comments on how RGD (Registered Graphic Designer) status in Canada has worked or what the tests are like are welcome.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Darrel’s comment is:
Why should we assume something as silly as certification would happen? ;o)
On Jun.10.2005 at 04:38 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
All right, to be serious...
Question #1: What should certification certify?
Whether or not you've paid your certification fee and if you are properly insured.
What specific qualifications or skills should be demonstrated to be certified?
In terms of graphic design skills? None.
Question #2: What should licensing allow?
The right for you to put 'fully licensed and bonded' in your yellow pages ad.
On Jun.10.2005 at 04:41 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Why should we assume something as silly as certification would happen?
So we can better understand.
I assume your second set of answers was even less serious than your first rhetorical question.
On Jun.10.2005 at 04:43 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
I assume your second set of answers was even less serious than your first rhetorical question.
I was completely serious. That is the jist of professional certification in this country. The only other variable is when the profession requires some sort of safety/code education.
On Jun.10.2005 at 04:50 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
I think the mistake people make is assuming certification = some sort of level of quality. There is no correlation between the two other than certain professions, when you're grossly negligent, you loose your certification.
On Jun.10.2005 at 04:51 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
If the only goal of certification is to ensure that someone has insurance then insurance companies already provide that certification.
Many certifications do assure some level of skill or knowledge. I used to be a NAUI scuba instructor and an American Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. Merely paying insurance will get you neither. Certified Public Accountants have to take a significant exam for that certification (but accountants are also licensed.)
Certification as such does not need to mean anything but saying no certification means anything or that none can is absurd.
On Jun.10.2005 at 05:17 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
Many certifications do assure some level of skill or knowledge. I used to be a NAUI scuba instructor and an American Red Cross Water Safety Instructor.
Right, both have a 'safety/code' training aspect. Any industry that involves direct human safety requires that. That's a bit of a stretch for something like graphic design, though...not that it wouldn't hurt for us to be CPR certified...
Certified Public Accountants have to take a significant exam for that certification (but accountants are also licensed.)
Again, code issues. A CPA has to be up on legal accounting codes. Just as an architect would need to be up on housing or zoning codes.
I suppose we could come up with some laws/legislation that effect kerning tables and PDF optimization, but that seems a bit far fetched. ;o)
Certification as such does not need to mean anything but saying no certification means anything or that none can is absurd.
Huh?
On Jun.10.2005 at 05:43 PM
John’s comment is:
This is a tough one, just a few thoughts...
What should certification certify?
I’m with Darrel on this one, certification cannot and should not certify one’s design capabilities or try to put a grade on their portfolio, but I think that it could certify the following:
The designer has an understanding of: professional best practices, work for hire issues, US copyright law, tax law, how to bill and invoice and related laws.
The designer has proven compliance with: applicable business law, copyright laws, software/font licensing, paid federal and state certification fees, federal and state tax laws, employment laws (for business certification),
Why?
It gives businesses a reason to hire a “certified designer.” They will want to hire a certified designer so that they can feel comfortable that they are not going to run into things like copyright violations, use of unlicensed photography, fonts, etc. It would allow them to better focus on the quality of design when choosing a designer or design firm.
What should licensing allow? In other words, what specifically should unlicensed people be prohibited from doing?
Unlicensed designers could be prohibited from claiming tax-exempt status for creative work. Businesses who hire unlicensed professionals can also not benefit from a tax-exempt status for hired design work.
Unlicensed designers would have no access to services provided by the licensing and certifying organization. Services like: sample contracts, pricing guidelines, legal help and protection when clients won’t pay or lawsuits against compliant designers. Consulting on copyright law, licensing issues, etc. Example: Lawyers have access to libraries and information provided by the Bar that they are licensed through. The licensing organization could work out a deal with Adobe to subsidize a lower price for licensed professionals. I mean, if part of your certification was to prove that you were using licensed versions of ALL your software and fonts, maybe they would cut us a deal.
Unlicensed designers or design agencies could be excluded from bidding for government contracts.
On Jun.10.2005 at 05:54 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
"Unlicensed designers or design agencies could be excluded from bidding for government contracts".
HUH, that's like putting a Band Aid on a Bleeding Ulcer. What's the use ???
Approximately, 45 to 60 per cent of people Procuring Government Contracts in Graphic Support are not Educated nor Trained Designer(s).
They are people with Small Business License. And minimal understanding of software applications.
No knowledge of Design.
The Government doesn't care. They have an OPEN DOOR POLICY.
Apologies Gunnar, I know you want to stick to the topic.
On Jun.11.2005 at 12:22 AM
elv’s comment is:
Unlicensed designers or design agencies could be excluded from bidding for government contracts.
It's the same old problem, just like ISO certifications. It doesn't necessarily mean the job will be well done, but it surely means the overall cost will be higher :)
On Jun.11.2005 at 08:51 AM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Unlicensed designers or design agencies could be excluded from bidding for government contracts.
My doubts are perhaps more functional than Maven’s or elv’s—what sort of government contract? Would a graphic designer’s license be required for taking a 200 page report in Word format, putting it into a specified typeface and size in a page layout program, and handing it off to the printer? Could a printer who isn’t a licensed graphic designer take the Word file and convert it to final type specs? Would the answer be different if it involved choosing typeface and size?
How about government employees? Could an unlicensed employee do things that an unlicensed contractor couldn’t? Why? You can’t hire a staff physician who isn’t licensed.
Licensing isn’t licensing if it’s just a government contracting provision. Does anyone have a vision of licensing restrictions that cover private entities?
As someone who thinks of himself as a systems designer, I’m trying to think of certification and/or licensing as a system. How would that system function? Especially those of you who wish for licensing or certification: What specifically do we want?
On Jun.11.2005 at 11:42 AM
John’s comment is:
Unlicensed designers or design agencies could be excluded from bidding for government contracts.
I’d hate to see this forum get hung up on this one, I suppose that I put that one in my original comment because I live near an Air Force Base that employs around 25,000 people and is the largest driving force for the local economy. The Base and other government agencies also spend lots of money on design work (national park service, books, websites, city/state and federal websites, etc.)
I assumed that licensing would have to be government regulated for it to be useful at all, so as part of that, only licensed designers would be able to bid for that (large) pool of work.
The Government doesn't care. They have an OPEN DOOR POLICY.
If there was a licensing system that required it, they would have to care.
I guess the point was that there should be benefits for the licensed designer, and from my perspective it could be a small benefit that might allow serious designers to do some work that typically goes out to the lowest bidder.
But again, I really didn’t want the part of my comment to be the main drive, or for other designers to hung up on it in this forum.
That said, I'm really more interested in what others have to say about licensing in general. Please forget that I brought up the government thing...
On Jun.11.2005 at 01:09 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Dateline: June 18th, 2075
The Design Police and Homeland Security Forces arrested Gunnar Swenson IV, age 7, on grounds of kerning type without a license it was reported today.
The young so-called "freelance designer", working with an unregulated computer, had
written online forbidden words urging his blog readers to resist current free speech abuses by The Speak-Up Central Committee. His written accounts were confiscated amid tensions between certified and uncertified designers. He is whereabouts are currently unknown.
This altercation came just days before Design Day celebrations in New New York, New San Francisco and New Chicago. The event may be the best known Design Appreciation holiday by the 6,000,000 faithful certified designers in the New United States.
President Chelsea Clinton, is expected to make an official visit to the grave of the Unknown Creative Director later this week.
On Jun.11.2005 at 01:32 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
A substantial part of me wants to join Mr. Peskman in just mocking the notion of graphic designer licensing but rather than dismissing the idea out of hand, I hope we can take it seriously enough to understand the implications. There are places where you need a license to braid hair. Corn rows without a license isn’t much more ridiculous than kerning without a license.
Although I understand the kerning without a license thing is meant to be a lampoon (I have used the same line in the past) it might be revealing to take it seriously:
Is kerning type a central definer of graphic design practice? If so, what did I do back when I paid typesetters to do that for me and what are any of us going to do now that software can do it better than most of us can? Trying to arrive at a serious answer might do a lot to reveal what is important to us.
On Jun.11.2005 at 02:22 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Gunnar, don't blame me, I just channel the stuff from the Future...
On Jun.11.2005 at 02:38 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
John:
I know the feeling, and didn't mean to bring attention to your comment. Only to say, I'm in D.C. which is an 89.9% Government Oriented workforce.
The BIG Money Contract Procurment work is handled by Legitimate Designer(s) and Consultancies. With that a thorough background check to include credit check, tax returns, any outstanding unpaid Federal, State, and/or local balances.
A Secret Clearance is needed. Referencing, Lockheed Martin, Booze Allen Hamilton, Nothrop Gumman, McDonald Douglas. (others) Of Course First Tier Identity and Design Consultancies are awarded the Upper Echelon work.
Generally, the run-of-the-mill, everyday work,
brochures, flyers, booklets are awarded to Design Enthusiast, whom generally are not Professional Caliber Designer(s). Big Brother, has to keep every-body happy.
Allow me to clear up and earlier statement. Yes, the Government does care. They overwhelmingly try to Accomodate everybody. To include Trained (Professional) and untrained (Enthusiast) Designers. Referencing both Administrations.
Again, Gunnar apologies for going off topic.
I have no witty retort for your query.
PESKY: seems to be on a ROLL.
On Jun.11.2005 at 03:53 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Trying to arrive at a serious answer might do a lot to reveal what is important to us.
Don't ruin my good mood! What is important, for me, Mr. Swanson, is getting enough work and fees from that work to sustain my family by my own efforts and not some controlling oversight by governmental certification boards. I pay my taxes, why should I pay dues too?
If it's concern for the whole future field of graphic design, the problem inevitably is one of control and regulation, not improvement and protection. Just one issue: regional differences in pricing of a similar project are complex enough. I wouldn't count on any committe to validate my business transactions or my craftsmanship.
In the meantime, Gunnar IV wants to borrow $500, so let me give you a mailing address.....
On Jun.11.2005 at 04:55 PM
matt_in_brooklyn’s comment is:
Do those envisioning "Design Licenses" see it as a single license covering all manner of designers, or — just as there are car vs motorcyle licesnes — would there be a Print License, an Interactive Media License, a Motion Graphics License, etc? I personally find the whole notion preposterous, but since we're discussing it... should there be certification, I certainly wouldnt want some guy with a Print License flagrantly violating the law by designing a website!
On Jun.11.2005 at 04:58 PM
matt_in_brooklyn’s comment is:
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
A substantial part of me wants to join Mr. Peskman in just mocking the notion of graphic designer licensing but rather than dismissing the idea out of hand, I hope we can take it seriously enough to understand the implications. There are places where you need a license to braid hair. Corn rows without a license isn’t much more ridiculous than kerning without a license.
In Louisiana you cant even arrange flowers without a license. No joke.
On Jun.11.2005 at 05:00 PM
Patrick C’s comment is:
Question #1: What should certification certify?
This is awfully tough in this day and age. 20 years ago you could, maybe, have put something reasonable together, but now graphic design is all over the place. Branding, web design, motion graphics, and of course print, etc., etc.
And John, I don't agree with the idea that certification should mean you understand tax law, billing, etc. These are things that are not specifically related to graphic design and things which some designers may never have to deal with in their lives.
Bottom line: certification can't be based on subjective criteria. But how can it be based on relevant and applicable criteria when there is so much diversity in the industry?
The only possibility is a broad based test that covers the basics of design—maybe some history, terminology, typeface styles, colour theory, etc. Unfortunately, because of the diversity of the industry, the one thing you really want to test for—production knowledge—you can't without separate tests and thus certifications.
Question #2: What should licensing allow?
I think like RGD status, licensing should not prevent non-licensed individuals from doing something. It would simply be a way of indicating, potentially, your dedication to the field and give clients additional reassurance that you know what you're doing (assuming you can work out the certification process properly).
As a side note: I, along with a fellow designer, have looked at trying to get RGD status and discussed the advantages and disadvantages. The conclusion we reached was that it was time consuming, expensive (that was a big negative), and ultimately useless. No one in Ontario cares if you have RGD beside your name on your business card. That's if they even know what it means, and I'm pretty confident that close to a 100% don't.
On Jun.11.2005 at 06:44 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Patrick—licensing should not prevent non-licensed individuals from doing something.
What you are saying is that you are against licensing since by definition the word means that non-licensed people are not allowed to do whatever the license is for (whether that’s fishing, driving a car, or running a nuclear power plant.)
The “accreditation” (as it’s referred to in Canada) of RGD status is, for all practical purposes, the same as certification in US lingo. The legal mechanism for it is slightly different but basically it doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything except falsely identify claiming certification. (Government in Ontario won’t hire non-RGD designers and the RGD folk of course hope that corporations will choose to hire only registered graphic designers.)
On Jun.11.2005 at 07:04 PM
ps’s comment is:
i think "pesky" summed it up quite nicely.
On Jun.11.2005 at 08:36 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
It strikes me that designing is imagining something different than the current state of things and exploring the implications of that idea. If a designer has no more ideas than one or if a designer never considers anything that turns out to be a choice worth rejecting then that designer is barely worthy of the title.
The headline is too big to fit on the page? So what happens if we make it even bigger? How would people deal with this website if it worked completely unlike every other website they’ve seen? The very nature of design is exploring dead end streets. Glancing quickly to the left and saying “It doesn’t look like a freeway to me so it must be a dead end” is just plain weak.
Even if you conclude that any scheme isn’t worth the trouble, a cost/benefit analysis is impossible without asking what the benefit is (and who the benefit goes to.) Saying “That idea sucks rocks” before understanding the idea strikes me as a very bad working method. Even if we are sure that the Pesker is right and the “dues” will be too high, we can speculate on what sort of a system would or would not create real advantages.
So I repeat my ground rule: If you want to talk about how stupid the very idea of either certification of licensing is, go find old threads on the subject, talk to your office mates, corner someone in a bar—just don’t do it here. This thread is about the possible nature of certification and/or licensing, not a discussion of the wisdom of a plan that hasn’t been described. As I said in my introduction to the subject:
“For question 1, assume that certification of US graphic designers will happen. For question 2, assume that licensing of graphic designers in the US will happen.”
So assume someone is going to carry the cost anyway; what good could come of certification and/or licensing and how?
On Jun.11.2005 at 09:09 PM
gregor’s comment is:
first I'll have to say that I'm neither for or against certification. From my reading on the issue, which I'll admit is limited a few articles and blog discussions, the cry for certification is largely from within the industry: associations, designer's who believe they already have the necessary skills and knowledge certification would require, academia, and to a lesser degree, software developers.
Really, a move toward certification/licensing needs to come from outside -- those who rely on our creative services and feel that the profession is chock full of 'imposters' and need certification combined with licensing to trust the industry, period. Short of this it's meaningless.
Problematic is that many of the arguments I've heard from the "floor" (i.e. blogs, etc) is, more than anything, designers whining about protecting our jobs from the 'untrained,' as opposed as a way to ensure the standard of design is raised and remains so.
Sounds kinda like a nation/state approach: "buy american."
Equally problematic is that certification and licensing will create a sub-mileau of non-certified or non-certifiable group of (non) designers that clients will hire. One can only imagine what those titles could be: from, content beautifier to whatever...
Associations should in fact be pushing toward certifications as a service to, and way in which to advocate for their memberships. Howevever, for many associations, including the AIGA, membership is not based on a desgner's ability and knowledge, but their ability to correctly type the numeric sequence of their credit card into a web-based form. (I failed that test 3 times until I finally typed in the correct numeric string). Associations being businesses, can't necessarily afford to restrict it's membership through some type of assessment process, although they should. (Here I acknowledge some associations do in fact screen applicants to some, limited and often subjective, extent).
Also problematic is the extreme difficulty it would be to certify designers. While a designer could pass a certification exam, it in no way represents the myriad of complex issues they will be required to contend with or solve in their career as a designer.
Certification of Ethics (which includes font and software licensing) and Professional Practices is certainly a possible measurement, but it's a bit harder to certify high level thinking of the design process or the even ability to use a vector path.
Additionally, much like the medical industry, I for one would be concerned with how any certification and licensing process would flatten design, much in the way western approaches to medicine have dominated alternatives to such -- if not outright made other approaches (holistic, eastern, etc) to medine appear as if quakery.
as a very divided community, I dont't think the design profession has the where-with-all to even begin formulating an effective and trustworthy methodology for certifiations outside of software prowess, pre-press knowledge and similar issues. Going into licensing issues is even deeper water.
On Jun.11.2005 at 09:42 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Gunnar — I believe that what you're asking for is beyond this group. It's a complicated topic, with an enormous initial hypothetical barrier to cross. It's beyond this group not because they're stupid, but because I think most readers probably can't get past the question of do or don't. They can read past threads, but I don't believe they've had enough history with the concept in order to think past it.
I also believe that in order to produce a list, you're going to have to find a group of readers that do, in fact, believe in certification — so much so that they've had time to rationalize methodologies. They've actually dreamt and seen this brave new world.
Personally, I do believe in some form of certification, but only for a very specific portion of our field. Portions of the industry where I believe it would help foster growth. How would it help specifically? I'm not certain yet. How could we fairly implement the program? I'm not certain how either.
But it's sort of like the issue of stem cell research — follow me for a bit here. That issue has such an incredible barrier of entry — the morality and ethics of it— that most people will never get beyond that point. And you have to get past that point before you can start talking about benefits, methodologies, and other practicalities.
But if your aim is to prove the futility of certification in the first place, by pointing out the difficulty of generating methodologies — then it would seem I've just missed your point.
On Jun.11.2005 at 10:20 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
I think what might be missed in this discussion is the fact that certification can bring about a more unified design field. Not in the terms of creative experimentation, but in using a more unified visual language. For instance, I had a design director that had no clue how to correctly use the words leading, kerning, and tracking. To her, they were interchangable. This is obviously a problem. Were a governing body to come to a final say on terms every designer should know, I think it would be to the positive benefit of our field. A certification doesnt mean you have to know everything, rather that you understand the technical aspects of our field. Knowing what the typographic definition of "10/13" means or the difference between 4 color process and pantone may seem like something all of us know, but I still think it bears necessity. And in our field, where (for some reason or another) rebellion is praised, it may be that a governing bosy needs to pull the discipline together in one form or another.
Is there anyone familiar with AIA certification or the Professional Engineering test? I know the very basic ideas behind both of them. I would consider them to be the closest ideologically to the design field. The PE test in particular, because it tests all fields of engineering, which could help approach matt_in_brooklyn's question. For sure, there is an emphasis on technical issues in both certifications, but I think there are just as many technical aspects of our own field.
I hope, in a roundabout way, that answers Gunnars question. Or raises more questions.
On Jun.11.2005 at 10:22 PM
gregor’s comment is:
Tan,
I have to disagree as I don't believe by any means that the post is beyond this group as a whole, but as I stated, as a very divided community, I dont't think the design profession has the where-with-all to even begin formulating an effective and trustworthy methodology for certifiations... and here i'll emphasize a very divided community with more personal interest at stake than any other determing factor.
but more so, this is a blog, not a think tank. ideas will be tossed around in sound bites, snippets and longer ruminations. Methodologies and strategies are beyond the scope of the post in the sense of depth of research required, strategic planning and sheer volume of writing to do full justice to the topic. However, from here, those relevant sound bites, snippets and longer ruminations could be useful in writing a case for or against certification and/or licensing.
but then, we'll of course have to see how this thread plays out to see if anything relevant comes out of it. In your case you indicate some thought has been made on your part -- even just the smallest elaboration may help kick this thread to life.
On Jun.11.2005 at 11:06 PM
gregor’s comment is:
and Gunnar,
I'll have to apologize for not dircetly addressing the post in the manner of using the (hypothetical) assumptions:
that certification of US graphic designers will happen.
that licensing of graphic designers in the US will happen.
it's been a long week. next post though....
On Jun.11.2005 at 11:43 PM
Eric Benson’s comment is:
I think the main problem with "certifying" designers really boils down to who will "certify" someone as a designer? I mean, who is the all knowing body of individuals that will certify a new graduate or "self-taught" designer as a certifiable, able to conduct busines designer? I really don't think the government is knowledgable or qualified enough to appoint some design committee to watch over this testing, nor do I think designers amongst themselves could decide who are the key figures to run this testing. Basically, as a collective we can't even agree to a definition of what we do. How could we test ourselves upon something that, by definition, doesn't have one?
Going back to school has taught me a few things... one that I love what I do, and two I even the faculty in school can't develop a cohesive definition of the craft and its impact on society/business. One of my favorite moments was when a student asked a professor what the difference was between art and design. He replied "What's the point in discussing this? No one can derive a definition for either one, so I have no opinion on the matter?"
Back to the discussion of certification... I'm also concerned about what rules will be set in place for testing? Is their a test like the LSAT? ARE? Although there are many objective things to be test someone upon to understand if they can function as a designer, I would argue there are twice as many that are completely subjective. If you simply test someone on if they understand how to do well in business as a designer, knows technical whats-its for the web or could send something to the press without corrupting the printer's machines then I would be all for that, but I feel the rest of the test is a bit questionable... anyway... that's my two cents and a half.
On Jun.11.2005 at 11:52 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Eric—who will "certify" someone as a designer?
You. You and Ric Grefé have pictures of Bill Frist and George Bush in a three-way with Noam Chomsky so you have the full power of anything you need behind anything you want.
You don’t have to worry about how it will get done. You don’t have to worry about who has standing to comment. You are in charge. What do you think standards should be?
You can start out with a general description. Derrick thinks typographic terminology and color reproduction techniques in printing are important aspects. From his comments I’d infer that he envisions certification as a fairly low-level process where most people who know technical aspects of type and printing can be certified. He sees it as a tool for better communication between designers. (Derrick—let me know if I’ve mischaracterized.)
Tan thinks certification for specific areas or activities makes sense. I’d love to hear specifics.
Since you are now in charge, what do you think? What should certification and/or licensing demonstrate and/or allow someone to do?
On Jun.12.2005 at 12:20 AM
Tan’s comment is:
Alright, alright. Let me see if I can draft something coherent about my vision of certification nirvana.
Had to open my big mouth...
On Jun.12.2005 at 01:37 AM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
Gunnar more or less got part of my stance right.
If you compare it to AIA or PE licenses (which I only do for comparison), these licenses do not say who is good at what they do, only competent enough to do it. A lot of what goes into this business is intangible, no one can deny that. But that doesnt mean that you cant nail down some tanguible aspects and say "designers should know this." Eric was asking who gets to make these decisions—I'm sure everyone in a profession that has licensing asked this question before licensing occured. It is merely that someone has to sart the ball rolling, and the answers eventually come out. I find it slightly wierd that for creatives who tend to ask clients to take a leap of faith cannot take a leap without needing concrete evidence on every minute detail themselves. Sorry, I hope thats not offensive to anyone, merely an observation.
I had a conversation a few months back with Craig Berger (SEGD's Chair of Education) who was discussing the reluctance of Environmental designers to accept certification/licensing. Environmental designers, it would seem, have more architectural aspects to their work and yet there is very little support for it. I wonder, and maybe this is a forum thread in and of itself, why there is such an immediate opposition to this idea. As evidenced by the first 15 posts or so to this thread, l/c isn't even open to discussion by a lot of people.
I look forward to seeing what Tan comes up with.
On Jun.12.2005 at 02:12 AM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
These are good questions, Gunnar, although complicated as Tan pointed out. I'm a member (and a Board member) of the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada (GDC); an organization that is firmly in pursuit of some form of licensing (though the word "Certification" is often used), although I, myself, have veered a bit from the party line in the past year or so ... probably due to hanging out with too many Americans.
Although I am no longer deeply committed to the idea of licensing, I am not uncommitted either. How I would do it is pretty much how the GDC does it:
Students enrolled in a 2- to 4-year+ program can become student members (though the GDC would love to up that to a 4-yr+ program, it is unlikely); upon graduation, they become Graduate members; after practicing design for 2 years they submit a portfolio for review and become Licentiate members; after practicing design for 5 years they become Members (MGDC). Anyone regardless of education can currently submit a portfolio for review to become either LGDCs or MGDCs.
There are pages of material on how the Portfolio Review is conducted, but basically, it is confidential (names of the reviewee or reviewers are not known to each other) and is conducted by 3 MGDCs overseen by the Board Membership Chair.
The review of work is based on (and here I paraphrase and edit heavily from official documents): strategy, creative concept, intelligent aplication of available resources, successful application of design to the improvement of the client's interests, not containing demeaning material [racism, etc.], not plagiarised.
Furthermore the work is judged on appropriate application, typography, skill, craftsmanship, use of imagery, implementation, etc.
A bit more on this is here.
Once accepted, GDC members are bound by a code of ethics (fair practice etc.) and receive all sorts of goodies and advice re contracts etc. just like the AIGA.
Now, if this process were applied to an actual License, I think it would prohibit anyone who had not "passed" from hanging out a shingle calling themselves a graphic designer.
Would the government swoop down and arrest little Tiffany for making business cards? Not likely. But presumably you don't get Tiffany to cut your hair because you don't know if she can cut hair ... mostly it's a buyer beware thing. If Tiffany butchers your hair you pretty much shrug your shoulders and say "Well, i get what I paid for." You don't go off on a rant saying "Hairstylists are maniacs, someone should do something about this!" because someone already did, and you chose to ignore it.
Under a License (not sure of exact terminology here), a client has at least some confidence that the person they hire knows something about what they're doing. Further, a client knows that there is something to know ... that their nephew actually can't do the same thing for $100. And there is some kind of governing body (not the gov't, the licencing institution, eg. the GDC) that clients and practitioners can go to for mediation if they feel they've been treated unfairly.
So licensed people would be prohibited from behaving unethically (according to the Code of Ethics), and unlicensed people would maybe just have to call themselves something else.
At this stage of course, no one cares. And maybe they never will. But if there were licensing, and if it was massively promoted, clients would expect designers to be licensed and would be wary of those who were not.
For most of us it would not be a big deal; for J. Smith just coming out of the 2-month "design" course, it would be a problem, unless he was smart and talented, in which case, it would not.
Americans seem to view this issue as government meddling in their affairs, but it really isn't a government issue, it's a professional one.
Well, that's the GDC party line, anyway. My verdict, for the moment, is out.
On Jun.12.2005 at 03:05 AM
Greg’s comment is:
I think licensing graphic designers is absurd. Telling a thirteen year old kid that he can't create his own webpage because he's not licensed, or telling a church secretary she has to pass a test before she lays out the next church bulletin is unrealistic. Design happens so often every day with so many people that telling all those people they have to stop and hire some 50 dollar an hour hotshot to do the thing they could do by themselves just wouldn't happen. So, Gunnar, I can't agree with the first premise. Sorry.
Certification, however, is another story. I think acreditation of design schools by some sort of Graphic Design Board would do a lot for cleaning the profession of those that thought to themselves, “Hey, you know what, I have a computer and some software, I'll be a designer today.” Certification is a badge of quality, and I think that if designers started self-regulating like that businesses would follow suit and start hiring only board-certified designers.
I realize that there are plenty of good designers that didn't go to school, though, so maybe some sort of test would be a good idea. Nothing so subjective as “kern this paragraph” or “design a logo for...” but maybe a brief definition of terms, some tests on knowledge of software, and a portfolio review. The review wouldn't necessarily be for a grade, but more like helpful suggestions by area designers about the work. Something like that would be very beneficial.
Most schools are harder than that, I know, but graduates also get to list the school on their resumés, so it all evens out. And we're not exactly trying to limit the type of person that becomes a designer, rather we're trying to gauge the motivation of people who want to be designers. I think certification would slow the influx of 17 year old nephews into our profession. Unless they could pass the test, that is.
I dunno. I'm just thinking as I type right now. These are my ideas. Any suggestions? Anything that wouldn't work?
On Jun.12.2005 at 08:41 AM
mandy’s comment is:
There are places where you need a license to braid hair. Corn rows without a license isn’t much more ridiculous than kerning without a license.
Granted, but you should consider why licenses are required for braiding. At least in NYC, licensing arose for salons out of concern about increased competition from immigrant workers who undercut the established salons' prices. The move to require licensing came from within the salon community and was a direct attempt to make it more expensive for new salons to open. It was about squashing the competition. A lot of the talk about requiring design certification seems to be coming from the same place.
On Jun.12.2005 at 09:53 AM
Patrick C’s comment is:
Gunnar—you're right of course. I was grouping the two together. Like Greg, I don't believe in licensing at all (for the reasons he mentioned) and so I wont deal with it. But I didn't really contribute what you asked for in the way of certification. So here it goes...
Certification is something I could get behind and encourage. If it is promoted well by the certifying body it would hopefully play the role of licensing without using law to prevent someone from practicing.
Question #1: What should certification certify?
Education
1. That you've been to a recognized design school and completed at least a 2 year diploma/degree in graphic design (or a program that contains a significant amount of graphic design instruction). The length of the program could be open to debate. 4 years is silly, but 3 is probably reasonable. You would have to look at the length of all the programs across the country to get a feel for what will work.
2. There would have to be a grandfather clause, of course.
Practical Knowledge
1. Certification would ensure that you have a good level of practical knowledge. This could be categorized by the different areas of graphic design—print, web, motion. Or you could make one test that deals with all three based on the assumption that your school taught you at least a little of all three.
On the print side, for example, it would ensure that you understand the terminology, pre-press practices, printing techniques, paper, ink...everything technical/practical one needs to know to bring a job to press.
Something very similar could be done for web.
And there would have to be testing to prove a reasonable general level of knowledge—typefaces, layout, colour theory, etc.
I don't believe there should be any sort of portfolio evaluation.
During school you could not be certified or even have partial certification. Every school program would have to have some sort of work period where students intern. Once completed they write the test and are good to go. I don't believe in having students wait for a period after school before being eligible for certification.
On Jun.12.2005 at 10:22 AM
James Reeves’s comment is:
This is a compelling thread, as I have often found myself muttering that graphic design ought to be federally regulated so that humanity may be spared things like purple, teal, and Comic Sans. However, I've never given the matter much formal thought until now.
The drastic comparison to practices such as taxi driving or hair braiding sounds right to me at first, but then it begins to fall apart when I consider what, exactly, certification should certify. Cornrows, transit, and buildings are incredibly tangible things, whereas graphic design is so enormous, democratic, and fluid that it is difficult to properly define it without starting an argument - so I think a more appropriate parallel might be to the act of writing rather than such specific and service based professions.
At the one extreme, the 13-year old designing his first personal website is akin to the high school student writing bad poetry - this sort of thing ought to be encouraged rather than regulated (so long as it is not inflicted on too many unwilling people). At the other end of the spectrum, a designer working for the public interest, whether for the government or some other vital group, could be regarded along the same lines as a journalist. The writing profession manages to effectively regulate itself as a diverse discipline with a variety of specific functions (I'm overlooking the state of mainstream journalism under the Bush admin.) and it seems like graphic design ought to do the same without resorting to standardized testing and paperwork.
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:40 AM
Amie Fournier-Flather’s comment is:
I feel the plans the GDC have laid out (and marian pointed out, thank you) are good ideas to stem from and I would happily comply with those standards. What it seems some people here are missing is the point that you (if this was to happen) will be evaulated by other professionals in the graphic design field and not the government. The gov't. has nothing to do with certifying. It is a membership based on peer evaluation from what I understand. Their are other professional bodies out there for other creative arenas such as architecture. My father is a member of the AIBD - he follows a certain code of ethics and is proud to have this membership. Apparently it means something in the architectural field. The way the GDC has their plans laid out is identical to how the BCS (British Computing Society) does for their members (and my husband is a proud member of the BCS).
I certainly do not have a problem with these aspects and would be happy to have something that said graphic designers are "certified" because it would mean that you are qualified and competant to do work in this field and follow a code of ethics that I generally think people should practice.
Having just graduated college and seeing my peers' portfolios being presented to the president of the college, I was frankly embarrassed for them. There were certainly some bad design practices into work on some of thier pieces - and I don't mean I don't like them or they were not creative - they were just generally bad. They would be some of the people who would not get the certification based on the poor work in their portfolio. That does not mean they do not know good design practice or have creative talent - they just don't know how yet to express it.
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:57 AM
Amie Fournier-Flather’s comment is:
Greg said:I think licensing graphic designers is absurd. Telling a thirteen year old kid that he can't create his own webpage because he's not licensed, or telling a church secretary she has to pass a test before she lays out the next church bulletin is unrealistic.
This is where you are confused. I don't believe anyone is saying that little Suzie can't create a webpage because she's 13 and not certified or Gladys can't create a church bulletin because she's not certified. What is being said is that "certification" testifies you are a credible graphic designer and you've got some sort of qualifications to say "hey, hire me". Little Suzie and Gladys aren't hanging a shingle out to drum up some business but you are.
On Jun.12.2005 at 12:04 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
I think acreditation of design schools by some sort of Graphic Design Board would do a lot for cleaning the profession of those that thought to themselves, “Hey, you know what, I have a computer and some software, I'll be a designer today.” Certification is a badge of quality, and I think that if designers started self-regulating like that businesses would follow suit and start hiring only board-certified designers.
Greg, NASAD is a fairly common accredidation organization for design schools. I'm not sure how high their standards are, but I know it was a huge deal when they came to recertify my school.
On Jun.12.2005 at 12:57 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
Students enrolled in a 2- to 4-year+ program can become student members (though the GDC would love to up that to a 4-yr+ program, it is unlikely); upon graduation, they become Graduate members; after practicing design for 2 years they submit a portfolio for review and become Licentiate members; after practicing design for 5 years they become Members (MGDC). Anyone regardless of education can currently submit a portfolio for review to become either LGDCs or MGDCs.
Marian, this is somewhat similar to AIA practices. Does each level contain its own level of responsibility or rights? For instance, full-fledged AIA members only can sign off on final building design documents, but anyone can be involved int he actual design process. I realize this is certifaction and not licensing, but does the GDC hope that (in time) only MGDC's will be able to head design firms or departments?
On Jun.12.2005 at 01:04 PM
Christopher Flather’s comment is:
In the interest of full disclosure I am an Associate Member of the British Computer Society; an organisation that certifies IT professionals.
I am not to sure on the issue of licensing Designers but I feel I can make remarks on the issue of certification. There seems to be some confusion in the post of some earlier posters on how certification works in most professional fields. In the architecture, design and accountacy fields certification is performed by Professional Bodies. These bodies are established organizations consisting of existing professionals in their field.
The process of certification is then, in essence, one of peer review of the general quality of ones work often coupled with the consent to follow a standardized Code of Ethics or Conduct and a set of Best Practises. It is not necessary for government bodies to understand the issues involved in design because they will not be reviewing the quality of applicants attempting to become certified; rather work will be reviewed by other established and credible design professionals.
Other posters seem to be confused as to the impact of certification/licensing. Many seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that immediately upon starting certification/licensing any non-licensed design will result in the police barging down the door. Obviously it is ridiculous to think that any thirteen year old designing their own website could, would or should be put behind bars.
Luckily; this is quite simply not the case. The fact that there are registered architects does not stop kids building tree-houses. The fact there are chartered engineers doesn't stop garden-shed tinkerers. The fact there are IT professionals doesn't mean your son can't fix your computer. The fact that there are proffesional accountants dosen't stop you doing your own taxes. Similarly, the fact certified designers would exist would not prevent you from hiring non-certified designers to do design work - or from doing it yourself.
Certification merely ensures that all those who are certified meet a basic level of common competence and conduct themselves in a manner that can be considered professional. Licensing; which I personally do not feel is necessary in the field of design; merely states that anyone using the title "Designer" complies with the basic standards established by the certification criteria. If a person who is not licensed continues with a different title they can continue to offer their services. I personally believe that rather than insisting on licensing professional bodies should actively encourage their members to make the distinction between themselves and non-certified designers clear (i.e. they are Certified Designers and not just Designers).
As an earlier poster said certification is not a matter of government interference; or for that matter even one of preventing non-certified designers from doing business; it is simply a matter of professionalism.
On Jun.12.2005 at 01:07 PM
Eric Benson’s comment is:
Since you are now in charge, what do you think? What should certification and/or licensing demonstrate and/or allow someone to do?
I resign.
On Jun.12.2005 at 01:12 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Some of the confusion here is clearly my fault. I mixed two topics that often get confused in on thread. Thanks to Chris for clarification but I have a couple of quibbles:
“Certification merely ensures that all those who are certified meet a basic level of common competence and conduct themselves in a manner that can be considered professional.
Certification could certify just about anything from being able to pronounce “graphic design” to esoteric knowledge to skills or knowledge specific to particular activities such as managing specific sorts of design projects.
Licensing; which I personally do not feel is necessary in the field of design; merely states that anyone using the title "Designer" complies with the basic standards established by the certification criteria. If a person who is not licensed continues with a different title they can continue to offer their services.”
A licensing law could take different approaches but protecting a phrase is unlikely to be one of them. I’m not allowed to practice medicine or agree to remodel your bathroom for a set price even if I call it something else. Licensing proscribes taking money for certain activities. The interesting problem for graphic design licensing would be defining what activities are the purview of graphic designers to the exclusion of others.
Licensing would have to be specific about activities that would be allowed licensed practitioners and disallowed unlicensed individuals. As a general rule, licensing just prohibits commercial activity. I can give you legal advice; it’s only when I take money for giving you legal advice that I run afoul of the bar association. (There are two sorts of licensing. Most licensing is conducted directly by a state agency. Some “professional” licensing is done by an organization like the state bar association. That organization has a relationship with the state but is a private organization.)
So nobody could be stopped from making a personal website. Nobody could be stopped from doing pretty much any graphic design activity for free.
Certification could be done by anyone. I could issue Gunnar Swanson Approved Graphic Designer certificates. The standards would be up to me. The good news is that nobody would care.
For certification to be successful it would require that someone be convinced that dealing with certified people had a real value. If any group put together a certification program in hopes of it really meaning anything it would require a compelling argument. Businesses should only hire those certified as Pan American International Designers because they have all sworn to forsake purple and teal so you can be assured that the ski parka you bought in 1987 won’t haunt you so check that your graphic designer is PAID.
Like graphic design projects in general, one would have to understand who the audience is and why they should care. Like brand development programs in general, one would have to make sure that the reality matched the promise for long-term success.
Certification might indicate particular skills or particular knowledge. The obvious question is who would care about that? One might also assume that certification should require
The term “accreditation” is used for the legal arrangement in Canada that allows for the RGD version of certification. In the US the term is usually used to describe the process of reviewing schools and programs. As Derrick points out, NASAD is the group that handles accreditation for art and design programs. The AIGA has worked with NASAD to make sure graphic design standards are reasonable.
It may be worth noting that a certification program that replicates other certifications is probably not worth the trouble. If a BFA from a NASAD accredited school is the standard then there is no reason to bother. Everyone who has that BFA already has a certificate that assures that standard. It’s called a diploma. If having insurance is the standard then insurance companies already provide such certification.
There isn’t a right or wrong answer to either of my questions. Any given answer has advantages and disadvantages.
We accept Eric Benson’s resignation with regret and hope that a good replacement will emerge.
On Jun.12.2005 at 01:40 PM
Greg’s comment is:
This is where you are confused. I don't believe anyone is saying that little Suzie can't create a webpage because she's 13 and not certified or Gladys can't create a church bulletin because she's not certified. What is being said is that "certification" testifies you are a credible graphic designer and you've got some sort of qualifications to say "hey, hire me". Little Suzie and Gladys aren't hanging a shingle out to drum up some business but you are.
No, I understand. Certification is fine, as per my previous statement. Licensing implies that there would be some force or regulatory body investigating any instance of possible fraud being committed according to a set of laws regarding the license. In other words, the “design police” would enforce the laws created by a licensing bill, probably introduced into the national or state level legislature (though at the state level, different states would have many varying practices and penalties). What I'm saying is that any laws governing the license would have to be clearly spelled out, or there truly might be thirteen year olds taking money to design “personal” websites or church secretaries being booked for doing design work without a license, unless there is a provision for doing work for non-profit organizations, but there are already agencies doing pro bono work for non-profits, so is that stealing work from agencies that could have used that for their own portfolios? Should agencies be allowed to use work created for non-profits for their own monetary gain? There are a whole bevy of things that would have to be denied, and allowed, and most of them are at the point of being absurd. Essentially, you can either license and deal with a whole mess of issues like above or not license and accept things the way they are now. Clearly it's more cost efficient to accept the way it is now.
On Jun.12.2005 at 04:48 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
There are places where you need a license to braid hair.
Again, it's a SAFETY (and, in this case, HYGENE) issue. All of the examples of licensed professions fall into that safety/legal requirement. It just doesn't work as an analogy for Graphic Design.
This thread is about the possible nature of certification and/or licensing
You ask folks to do that and not expect a lot of us to think it's stupid. It's like George Bush asking us to talk about how great his social security reform program is.
On Jun.12.2005 at 06:44 PM
HQ’s comment is:
Just another layer of bureaucracy! Seems like just another way to take more of my hard earned dollars. And for what?
Aren't my excellent portfolio, creative thinking, solid concepts, good words from happy clients, enthusiasm for the project at hand and my sparkling personality enough?
Do I really need more than this?
On Jun.12.2005 at 07:22 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
You ask folks to do that and not expect a lot of us to think it's stupid. It's like George Bush asking us to talk about how great his social security reform program is.
Lousy analogy, Darrel. It’s more like saying “What could or should be changed about Social Security?” I haven’t asked you to endorse anything. I’ve asked anyone who is interested in the topic and especially those who have made comments in favor of certification and/or licensing to speculate on the possible nature of licensing and/or certification.
I have also not asked anyone to not think it’s stupid. I’ve just made it clear that stupidity is not the question at hand. As the author of what is, I believe, the only published article against the idea of certification, I can hardly be accused of partisanship of the nature you imply. I will, however, say that there is something stupid in opposing something without first gaining some idea of what it is you think you’re against.
Tan and I have both made reference to specific certification. Saying that certification would waste your time and money is dumb since there is a significant chance that one of us will suggest a certifications scheme that couldn’t include you, thus something that could not waste your time or money. That’s why asking “certify what and to whom?” before rejecting the idea is the non-stupid approach.
And for what?
Helene—If I’m not mistaken, that’s the question I asked.
Aren't my excellent portfolio, creative thinking, solid concepts, good words from happy clients, enthusiasm for the project at hand and my sparkling personality enough?
Enough for what? Clearly not enough for everything; seemingly enough for you right now.
On Jun.12.2005 at 07:39 PM
HQ’s comment is:
... seemingly enough for you right now. and the rest of my career. Amen.
On Jun.12.2005 at 09:08 PM
matt’s comment is:
Gunnar wrote:
Lousy analogy, Darrel. It’s more like saying “What could or should be changed about Social Security?” I haven’t asked you to endorse anything. I’ve asked anyone who is interested in the topic and especially those who have made comments in favor of certification and/or licensing to speculate on the possible nature of licensing and/or certification.
Actually, you kind of did. Specifically, you wrote:
This isn’t about whether the idea is vitally important or one of the seven stupidest things anyone has ever suggested. For question 1, assume that certification of US graphic designers will happen. For question 2, assume that licensing of graphic designers in the US will happen.
Which would be kind of like Bush saying "assume Privatization of Social Security will happen: How do you envision it being structured?"
Unfortunately, like privatization of SS, Certification/Licensing of GD is a hot-button topic, so it may be difficult to just toss it out there as a given, without triggering a pro/con debate instead, even if your intentions were good.
On Jun.12.2005 at 09:46 PM
ps’s comment is:
certification is in place already. it might not be called "certification" but "qualifications". i tend to think that in a creative field that has to be enough.
anyone that cares to hire a designer that went through a design education, can simply look at someone's resume and see what schools are listed. not enough? see what else is listed... work-experience, clients served, software mastered. by nature there will be various levels of certification: from fresh out of school to 5 years of work practice, ad agency experience etc.
if that is not official enough. maybe schools should take the lead and educate the public and the business community what their foundation courses entail and what a student in order to graduate will know. certainly there is a foundation that all can agree on and that could be the lowest level of certification. it would make the education price-tag more digestable as well.
so, i think in essence the certification is already there, it just needs to be promoted.
but then again, i'd still would want to hire a good designer. and not the one that is officially certified...
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:20 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Matt—Which would be kind of like Bush saying. . .
More like saying something is going to change with Social Security and asking for a discussion of possible paths. (Bush pretended to do that but didn’t do a very good job of pretending.)
It actually does disturb me that a group of designers can’t make a hypothetical assumption long enough to consider the pros and cons of an actual strategy (as opposed to a vague shadow of a strategy.) I don’t have time to lay out my certification proposal tonight but it doesn’t revolve around production manager skills. One of the things I would think would be worthwhile in certification of graphic designers would be an understanding of strategic action. I am not sure how people who won’t think about the implications of an action—even an action they consider inadvisable—can work on any strategic level.
ps—i'd still would want to hire a good designer
What distinguishes a “good designer”?
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:27 PM
ps’s comment is:
What distinguishes a “good designer”?
i won't go there, (but an official certification does not cross my mind as a criteria.)
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:45 PM
Rebecca C.’s comment is:
Minimum Requirements: Presentation (some level of craft must be established,) Client Interaction (don't lose the job,) Production (define CMYK & paginate for print people--or HTML, Flash, etc. for Web Designers, other specific test for specific skill sets,) and History (Designers & movements in specific field.)
After that, it--the Work--becomes too subjective to define. How can you test it objectively when your Grandmother still doesn't understand what you do for a living?
Why: why not? If the argument is being made that it WILL happen, why not just discuss for discussion's sake? With my U.S. Associate's degree and no awards to get past AGIA's door I'll probably be out of a job, or at least working illegally/without standing as a Designer, but what the hell? I can always bus tables... Maybe Designer will become the new Actor. [But what I really want to do is (Art) Direct.]
On Jun.12.2005 at 11:46 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:
This should NOT be about making your own website. Licensing or certification are commercial contracts. This is about getting paid.
But what if, instead of about worrying about getting paid, you couldn't even get the work printed or the server space?
It seems that the focus of either certification or licensing has been, up to now, based upon the designer’s interaction with the client. What about the service provider, such as a commercial printer? What is their role?
The printer might have an obvious stake in desiring third-party work to be supplied by certified designers, especially if bonded or similarly insured against errors and omissions.
The paying client usually is in an agreement about this. When the work is done by a third-party designer, when do they pick up the liability? In their contract with the client? How many independent designers use contracts?
A printer would be in the best production position to enforce such a requirement, although they are often economically in the most vulnerable.
Certification would require a minimum understanding of copyright and trademark issues, the ability to read a basic contracts and understand responsibilities and potential legal liabilities. It could give a printer the peace of mind that a designer’s screw up will not cost the printer the paper, time, and client.
Standardized proofing conventions might also be a possible goal.
Am I Crazy?
On Jun.13.2005 at 03:00 AM
Tan’s comment is:
Good grief, don't you people have anything else to do on a beautiful Sunday?
Ok, so here's my certification plan and rationale. Mind you, it's rough as a rhino's hide, and more shallow than one of Mazzei's posts. *wink*
But please bear with me.
....
First, some considerations.
One of the strongest objection that people have about certification is that it will lump all designers into one large, homogenous pile. They ask — how can you systemize an industry that's so diverse, so individualistic, so unconfined?
But you see, as ps stated, try to think of "certification" as "qualifications" or "capabilities," if you will. And by that definition, we already have system and structure in place, even if we don't realize it yet.
This system/structure can be defined, but not limited, by the following criterias:
1. Degrees of professional education — earned by various methods, including self-taught, in-field practice, or via more formal academic institutions.
2. Our industry is comprised of acknowledged specialties that can be separated further by several pillars:
• By client industries — music, healthcare, financial, retail, biotech, etc.
• By client categories — private, corporate, nonprofit, government
• By project specialties — annual reports, packaging, merchandising, branding, strategy development, direct marketing, interactive, e-commerce development, etc.
• By project scale and scope — from small jobs ($3-5K) to large retail/corporate campaigns ($100K - $500K) to global, network agency-level brand engagements ($1mil - $you can't even fathom)
3. And lastly, there are the industry codes, client-driven guidelines, or a specific set of knowledge that most of us have gained as a result of doing work for certain types of clients, such as:
• FDA regulations for packaging — for designers that have familiarity with consumer packaging for food or pharmaceutical products
• SEC regulations for corporate financial reporting in annual reports
• Structural regulations for environmental design, signage, wayfinding systems
• Familiarity with protocol and/or clearance for municipal, state, or federal agency work
• Familiarity with international restrictions on packaging — the European "air" tax on form factors, environmental biodegradability regulations for inks and substrate, etc.
Ok, so given these basic considerations (I'm sure there are more), we can start to see that there are constructs of our profession that go beyond the intangible and subjective evaluation of design work. It also goes beyond the mundane skillsets and software proficiencies that are actually irrelevant to a designer's ability to deliver a successful design solution. Our "qualifications," "knowledge," and "capabilities" are the determining factors of our profession.
So, with all of this in mind, here is my formulated plan for certification—sort of. Please remember that this is just a rough outline. I have absolutely no pretense of having worked out any of the specifics. The division between categories below is just a stab. I'm clearly bullshitting from the hip here — self-admitted.
Having said that, this should give you some food for thought.
....
Proposal for Graphic Design Certification
I propose that GD certification be comprised of the following three levels. These certification levels reflect an individual designer's earned qualifications, training, and in some cases, earned specialization in certain facets of design or industry work. These certification levels are not meant to indicate a level of quality in the creative work, but rather a specific set of professional knowledge and relevant experience.
Certified — Level I
• Individual has completed necessary training/education for graphic design/graphic communications in an accredited university, collegiate-level design program, or vocational college— and have completed a minimum 2 years of professional practice; OR
• Individual has completed a degree in an associated field to graphic design (fine arts/marketing/web development), has taken additional training in design — and can show no less than 3 years of professional practice; OR
• Individual has no academic training, but has had in-field, practical training — and can show no less than 5 years of professional practice.
• Individual has shown understanding of professional code of ethics in business practices (copyright/trademark, spec work, whatever)
Certified — Level II
• Individual has attained requirements for Level I certification; PLUS
• Individual has shown familiarity and at least five years of experience with several of the following design specialties, including annual reports, packaging, merchandising, identity development, direct marketing, and interactive/web design.
• Individual has gained experience with strategic development in conjunction with either brand, interactive, retail, environmental, or investor relations-related design projects and campaigns.
Certified — Level III
• Individual has attained requirements for Level II certification; PLUS
• Individual has significant experience with all varieties of clients—including private, corporate, nonprofit, and government
• Individual has shown leadership within industry (this is totally sketchy thinking here) — his/her work has been recognized by numerous industry sources; he/she has been published in industry periodicals or other editorial sources; he/she has taught design in a collegiate-level program
• Individual has specific familiarity with FDA design regulations; and/or specific SEC financial reporting regulations as related to a graphic design project or campaign.
• Individual has a minimum of 7 years of professional practice experience.
....
Before you start picking this apart, the idea here is that this system of certification is correlated to a designer's level of qualifications. How, what, and when can be debated on to death — my list is just a quick stab.
I also think it would be helpful to have a designer's resume and work reviewed by a professional panel, at each step of certification — much like the GDC's method. You want to just make sure that the work does indeed match the claims and qualifications. It can be as objective as you make it.
And it doesn't mean that you need to be a Level III certified designer to be successful. If that's not the kind of work you do, then don't bother getting certified for that level. And yes, you can still work without any type of certification at all — it all depends on your type of clients, and your type of work.
A certification system creates a tangible set of professional standards that can be used as a tool by clients. A certification system can also be used as a career map by designers — if you gain this type of experience, then you can build an arsenal for higher certification — if that's what you want.
I believe certification has real uses for certain clients, establishing more credibility for our profession as a result.
But enough — Gunnar asked how, not if and why. So that's my way to how.
On Jun.13.2005 at 04:57 AM
Tan’s comment is:
And I still think it's beyond this group.
On Jun.13.2005 at 05:07 AM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Tan is wrong in thinking that it is"beyond this group". With all due respect, Tan, underestimation of your peers is superficial when they are only asking questions that need to be asked. How else are we to arrive at a change of opinion?
I, for one, by reading thru the more specific ideas think it's not as bad a medicine as I originally thought - if it means that some elevation of the profession were possible. Detals can be worked out logically. My issue was about control and regulation.
Secondly, it just may be inevitable regardless of the arguments against it.
Thirdly, with technology becoming more complex, a client that doesn't seek out a skilled designer just gets what he or she pays for. Being unlicensed isn't a crime, it just means one chooses to carry on without credentials.
I appreciate the effort that went into making the arguments for and against it.
On Jun.13.2005 at 08:13 AM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Note to self: Detals is spelled details.
Which goes to show that spelling and proofreeding ought to be included in the certification process.
On Jun.13.2005 at 08:40 AM
Matt’s comment is:
At the risk of getting people even more riled up, perhaps rather than certification, what about Designers...Unions? Similar to the way its done in the film industry, or theater, for cinematographers, lighting, actors etc?
On Jun.13.2005 at 09:48 AM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:
Q: What distinguishes a “good designer”?
A:i won't go there, (but an official certification does not cross my mind as a criteria.)
(A negative tautology. Cool.)
Since there is no such thing as a recognized “official certification” then said certification does not describe what it would be meant to certify if it existed which it doesn’t because we’ve rejected the idea based on the fact that it has been shown to be meaningless based on the fact that it doesn’t describe anything because it does not exist. Can’t argue with that.
How can you test it objectively when your Grandmother still doesn't understand what you do for a living?
(I don’t know if there’s a name in logic for this one. Just old fashion misdirection, I guess. In rhetoric it would be called a red herring.)
My grandmothers are both dead. I suspect that your grandmothers would not be on a certifying board for graphic designers.
So forget official anything and grandparents. Describe what you think is important to be recognized. Or is “good designer” like Justice Stewart’s not defining pornography but knowing it when he saw it? But even Supreme Court sophistry doesn’t save us; we could just choose the graphic design equivalent of Potter Stewart and say that we want to certify a subjective but expert opinion.
Nobody said it had to be a test and nobody said it had to be objective. I can think of some reasons why both test and objective might make a more successful certification program but we should arrive at restrictions, not start with them.
With my U.S. Associate's degree and no awards to get past AGIA's door I'll probably be out of a