>Anyone a member?

I am.

Ontario is one of the few places in the world where Graphic Design is a registered profession, like law, medicine, architecture, accounting, etc.

The RGDO started about 5 years ago.

Isn't the Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario one of only two organizations that certify designers? Or was it that Ontario was one of only two cities that certify designers?

That's funny, I was just thinking that I should email Nick and ask him about this.

From the RGD site:

What is graphic design?

Graphic design is an interdisciplinary, problem-solving profession that combines visual sensitivity with skill and knowledge in areas of communications, technology and business.

Hmm... this seems to be a rather narrow definition and only scratches the surface of what we do.

I'm a member of the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada (GDC). They are currently working hard to implement certification for the rest of Canada. Part of the reason why there is certification is to 'separate the sheep from the goats', I presume — there are far too many people who claim to be designers nowadays. The RGD designation in a way acts as a 'pledge of quality'.

Can the capabilities of a graphic designer really be measured with a written exam and a portfolio review by a selection committee? It's more than that acutally: to qualify for the exam/portfolio review you have to be a graduate from a 3- 4-year design program and 3 years of experience in the field. If academic qualification in design is not an adequate indication of ones design abilities, then certification wouldn't work, either.

Certification, in my opinion, pushes the design profession more towards a science rather than an intrinsically artistic activity. But we're not architects/accountants/lawyers/medical doctors!

This is only my own subjective opinion... I'd love to hear what you all think about professional accreditation in graphic design.

So, Nick...how's that working for you?

As for the 'certification' criteria, I dunno. I've met plenty of talented graphic designers sans art-school degree.

I have been urged to join the GDC a few times - but I have not. I really really like the work they do to make design a more creditable profession, but I cannot stand having to deal with the foo foo snob fest. I just find when I attend GDC run events, its a little to posh for me. Just a personal thing though.

As for the jazz Keith mentioned about qualifying - I think that is a crap idea. I know there are alot of people toot tooting around saying they are designers when they are not, but there are other very talented people that have little or no schooling in design. I think experience in the industry is certainly a great qualifier but saying you have to take at least 3 years of school in design specifically is just not fair at all. I took a very reputable 2 year program (which has now changed to three but whatever) so I would not even be considered.

Bottom line is, in my opinion, it is the work that matters most.

>saying you have to take at least 3 years of school in design specifically is just not fair at all

Could there be two types of certification? One that applies to those without a design education and one to those who went through a 4 year program? I'm not sure if that would be a great idea, just asking. Because four years of college education are not easy, so it should account for something. And it could be a way of calssifying designers:

1. Designer with talent coming out the ying-yang but not book-smart

2. Designer who busted his ass for four years but isn't that good

I know, major and bad generalizations, but you get the idea.

1. Designer with talent coming out the ying-yang but not book-smart

2. Designer who busted his ass for four years but isn't that good

Exactly, Armin. That's why it's so difficult to quantify a designer's abilities.

I have been urged to join the GDC a few times - but I have not. I really really like the work they do to make design a more creditable profession, but I cannot stand having to deal with the foo foo snob fest. I just find when I attend GDC run events, its a little to posh for me. Just a personal thing though.

Hmm... interesting observations, to say the least ;-) Foo foo snob fest, quite right! Most GDC events they put up lack real substance, and always end up being just schmoozing and networking cocktail parties. How sad. There's no one there who's really passionate about design, that's the main problem.

1. Designer with talent coming out the ying-yang but not book-smart

2. Designer who busted his ass for four years but isn't that good

You might run into another problem with that logic as well. What about the people who attended a four-year institution (or five or six year depending on the quality of the academic advisors) but got a fulltime job before graduating? I received the recommended "four years" of design education, I just don't have a piece of paper to prove it...

There's no one there who's really passionate about design, that's the main problem.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is the the perception when attending a typical GDC event. But rather than an absence of passion, I see an absence of opportunity to express, develop, encourage or enjoy passion about design. As a charter member and long-time executive committee member of the Vancouver Island chapter, I find that most events do become socially oriented with members occupied, mainly, with impressing everyone else at the function that they are "busy" and "successful".

Enough diatribe... the organizers of these events do try to make them informative, educational, enjoyable and otherwise valuable; so why does it so frequently "not work" for some folks?

As a professional designer with zero formal design training I also find it unfortunate that a design degree or certificate in name is some sort of qualifier.

I have a BA in Fine Art but my working practice for the last 10 years or so has been in graphic design for print and interactive.

I don't think that RGD Ontario is wrong in its pursuits maybe just too exclusive in their definitions. But I can also see that their mandate might get watered down were they to adopt too open a membership policy.

I can't say that being a certified graphic designer in Toronto would mean anything to 99.99% of clients.

Oh and Armin, Ontario's a province not a city ;)

Oh, I also wanted to say that the GDC website is aesthetically hideous has some odd information architecture going on.

Interesting discussion. Accreditation is always a touchy subject. We discussed something similar to this a few months back on another AIGA-related thread. Forget where.

Anyway, since I'm chums with Matt Warburton, the current GDC national president -- I've invited him to join the discussion and get his perspective on the matter. Matt was the former GDC/BC president, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the people responsible for the entire accreditation program in Canada.

He might join us, he might not.

As to my take on the matter, I think professional accreditation in design is definitely a positive thing. Its purpose is to support and benefit the business and professional aspects of design. If you're a designer who finds no value in that, then fine, don't pursue getting accredited. It doesn't mean you couldn't practice design -- it just means you choose not to participate in the program.

Design programs and schools across the continent are all but accreditted now. There are fair and logical procedures and standards that suit all types of programs, from 2-year to MFAs. And if it makes sense for schools to adopt a standard, why does it not make sense to extend the expectations to professionals?

Frankly, graphic design is one of the last design profession without some type of professional accreditation. I think that the resistance to accreditation shows the immaturity of our practice as a whole.

It also shows that as a group, designers are insecure about their professional skills and training, and are unwilling to establish a system to cultivate a legacy for new designers to follow.

I went to the same school as Amanda, and we always get a GDC presentation each year, encouraging students to join and that it is important when you are a professional, etc.

However, what made ME cringe was that their representatives have not only been BORING as heck, they struggled to figure out what to talk about (unorganized), hardly knew what they were speaking about (they didn't even hide the page flipping in front of us), and frankly were not PASSIONATE about the subject and did not give enough concrete evidence that the organization would be of value to me.

I'm sorry, I find that type of behaviour highly unprofessional. Some people aren't public speakers, granted, but when you're asked to speak to a group of around 75 students you'd think they'd be more prepared.

We had an copyright lawyer (!) present to the same group of us about the business side of things in design, and by GOD he was damn hilarious and obviously very into his profession. Copyrights! Something you'd think would put you to sleep was rather interesting. My point is that he almost sold me on HIS profession as opposed to the GDC folks.

In this profession, presentation is everything. I'm just disheartened that even if the GDC really truly was great, that they would be so poorly represented.

And btw, the GDC website is one of the most attrociously designed ones I've ever seen! Ye gods. A visual -- and accesibility! -- nightmare.

Thanks for the heads up on this thread Tan. I check this site out periodically (gorgeous design, eh?!?!) but have been rather busy lately (that's the braggin' at posh, but mundane GDC events syndrome kicking in, now where's the beer tent...).

Accreditation happened in Ontario in 1996 and was spearheaded by Albert Ng, along with quite a number of other individuals. I wasn't involved, merely watching from the BC hinterland. Basically the GDC Chapters In Ontario came together and were granted a title act, which gives them the right to control and administer the term Registered Graphic Designer and the letters R.G.D.

This involved what we call lowering the bar before raising the bar. This "grandfathering period" allows any person who has been making a living as a designer to become a member prior to the enactment of the higher admission requirements (ie. the exam). This allows the association to go to the provincial government and accurately claim they represent a recognizeable number of people in that profession. Prior to that, GDC members in Ontario had to pass a portfolio review process and meet certain work and educational requirements. These requirements are still the case for GDC members in the rest of Canada.

In theory accreditation is a good thing because it gives the profession more leverage with regards to influencing educational curriculums which means better design graduates, but more importantly (in my view), it is a more official form of government recognition which means that they could start requiring that business faculties include how to buy design coarses in their programs. Presto: educated clients!! What a concept!!

Right now, the Manitoba Chapter is the closest to getting similar legislation, but theirs will be more difficult to achieve as it can't be a private members bill which how Ontario got theirs.

I encourage anyone with questions specific to accreditation in Ontario to contact the RGD Ontario Executive Director www.rgdontario.com. For questions about accreditation in the rest of Canada, feel free to contact me offlist.

Regarding some of the other comments. GDC events are the furthest thing from snobfests that I've ever seen! Personally they're my escape from my little office and a chance to get inspired, have a beer or 3, catch up with old friends or meet new ones. I'm a little taken aback by Keith's comments that we're low-brow in content. The past 2 Environs Conferences here in Vancouver were very well received, especially by the AIGA members in attendance. I'll be sure to heckle Keith when he's presenting at ATypI this fall!! Hey dude, yer ligatures slippin...

And that definition of graphic design is a lot shorter than the one the GDC uses, and that I know the GDC (along with AIGA and our Mexican counterparts) submited to our respective governments which is as follows:

“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in planning, designing, and managing the production of visual communication, so as to convey specific messages or concepts, clarify complex information or project visual identities. These services can include the design of printed materials, packaging, video screen displays, advertising, signage systems, corporate identification, and information systems. Examples of establishments in this industry are communication-design consultants, corporate identity consultants, graphic designers, and graphic design consultants.”

Happy trails folks!

Hi Matt, it's nice to see you here!

Maybe I was a bit severe in my comments. I have indeed attended some really great events held by the GDC, but not recently. Frankly the BC Chapter of the GDC hasn't put on that many events for this past year. Carole Charette's exhibition and presentation was the only one that was good and had substance. The rest, really, have been just schmoozing: pub night, Christmas party and the Salazar Awards evening. I wasn't at the Graphex Judges' Evening, (it was on the same night as the Emily Carr Presentation Night!), which was unfortunate. I was particularly disappointed with this year's Salazer Awards evening. It was rather poorly organized: it didn't really get publicized (I didn't know about it until my friend told me), the students' work was poorly displayed, attendees were few and more importantly, there was practically no content except the FM screening presentation by CREO (which was far from inspiring). In 2001, Tan came and talked about his work. That was great and felt that I did learn something. A lot of money and effort seems to have been put into the Graphex awards. Is that a good use of resources, one might ask?

Yes, part of being in a Society like the GDC is about networking and meeting people. It's especially important for a profession like ours, but frankly my main interest is to learn and to share our passion. That seems to be lacking at the GDC. I'd really like to see the old GDC several years back, when we had (almost) monthly lectures/presentations/panel discussions on fascinating topics and great guest events like Wolfgang Weingart and Cyan. I know it's all expensive and labour-intensive, but if we could do it then, why can't we do it now? Just give me a call, I'll help running errands and setting up, any time.

Yes, Environs is a good thing. I wasn't at the one last year but the one I went to in 2000 wasn't bad at all, though a bit short.

There is no doubt that the GDC as a professional body is doing its bit to advocate for the benefit of our profession. The ethical standards and code of professional practice that it upholds, and the support and advice it gives to its members are great. I'm all for these things and commend highly for the work people like Matt are doing.

Please forgive my frankness in these posts :-P

(Heckle away, Matt, heckle away ;-)

Hey Matt, thanks for joining. It's always good to be answerable directly to criticism. It also proves another point -- that it's a myth that GDC or AIGA execs are elitist snobs who never bother to listen to its membership. On the contrary, Matt and the folks I've meet at the GDC are some of the most casual, normal, down-to-earth designers I've ever known. And man, can they put down beer.

And Keith -- I can't speak for Matt, but I think it's perfectly ok to criticize Matt or whoever in the GDC if you feel something could be improved. Be as frank as you'd like -- never apologize for having strong opinions or criticism. Just be ready for a response.

Like the AIGA, these organizations are run by a bunch of volunteers doing the best they can -- but it doesn't mean that it's always perfect or good. Don't back off just because he responded, know what I mean?

I know Matt -- he loves a good verbal joust as much as I do.

Anyway...boy, you Canadians and your government regulations. I'm always amazed at the depth of involvement that government concerns enter the realm of a private business sector like graphic design. Fascinating to see the difference between Canada's socialist economy versus the US's free-for-all capitalism.

This discussion is why I'm so excited about the upcoming AIGA conference in Vancouver. There are more issues under the surface than meets the eye. I think for the first time in recent AIGA history, there will be a true non-US contigency of designers in the audience and in the discussion workshops. I hope people will be brave enough to really say what's on their minds.

Should be great.

All you Canadian lurkers out there, come'on...join the discussion. I know there's much more shit you want to slam. Bring it on!

This thread is good, it's nice to give tha AIGA a rest for once and let some other organization have it.

>along with AIGA and our Mexican counterparts

Huh? What Mexican counterparts?

>So, Nick...how's that working for you?

The whole issue is very muddy, and still being worked out.

One of the founders of the RGDO described how in the early 90s he was presenting to the CEO of a multinational, and the guy said "my grandson does this stuff on his computer"

...cont. (sorry, hit button accidentally)

SO, it's not about the quality of any particular piece of work or any particular designer, and it's not about monopolies and bureaucracy.

It's about a situation where serious people who invest in an education and "pay their dues" to learn their chops, are then undercut in a dumbed-down, lowball-gets-it, all-done-by-computers-not-people, marketplace. Accreditation for designers is not perfect, but it has its merits. As a member, I get a variety of benefits. Wherever possible, I use the sample contract in my membership kit, with the 50% up front fee.

>Fascinating to see the difference between Canada's socialist economy versus the US's free-for-all capitalism.

I'm not sure there is that much difference here. The US is pretty strong on regulations, you know, and in many areas (eg IRS, EPA) tougher than Canada. The RGDO campaigned hard to get Graphic Design accredited in the Provincial (our version of a State) Legislature. It's only accredited in one Province. Surely there are accredited professions in the US, and provisions at the State or Federal level for dealing with this. I would imagine people in the AIGA have looked into this.

Hey Keith, those monthly events burnt out a whole generation of GDC folks, never to return quite likely. We need new blood and less whining!! The common misperception is that there is a well-oiled machine that puts these events together, which is a complete falicy and you know it (you've been to our meetings, you know how dislexic we are!!). Its regular folks who get together and do it. The BC Chapter has great resources (ie. supportive sponsors) for printing cool announcements and ECIAD is always great about letting us use their theatre, so if a member wants to do something, all they have to do is approach the execs and present a proposal. Its easy and would be warmly welcomed. I put out a call for Graphex volunteers and got a bunch of responses, but when it came time to actually do something, hardly anyone showed up (and we meet in an Irish pub so you'd think people would at least show up for the beer!). AIGA Seattle is the same, its a small core of folks who do all the work, and its the same across both countries from what I've seen.

I've always had fun doing it, but its a huge amount of work which is why I'm glad to finally be off the local board (other than chairing Graphex'03) and able to focus on national issues (like resolving the current impasse with RGD Ontario and working on welcoming our new chapter in the Arctic!).

As to the query about our counterparts in Mexico, there's actually a few professional associations for designers down there. Only one is a member of Icograda and they're at Trama Visual AC

Cheers, Matt

Hey Davin,

I have a BFA too, and am primarily a self-taught art director/designer. I became an RGD by being "grandfathered" -- at the start they were trying to build up a significant membership with momentum, and that's the way to do it. So there's some irony there, but like I said, it's not about the individual stories, it's about getting respect and income for one's line of work.

In non-regulated and de-regulated industries, big capital has an easy time driving down pay.

In non-regulated and de-regulated industries, big capital has an easy time driving down pay.

how does the RGD resolve that issue?

Frankly, graphic design is one of the last design profession without some type of professional accreditation.

If you break it down to basics, I can think of only three industries where there accreditation is required only because there are lives at risk.

1. Law

2. Medicine

3. Construction

If graphic design can't kill anyone, then why the need for accredation? To differentiate us? If the kid next door with the Compaq and Publisher generates work that is deemed "professional" or "good" in context of this thread, then he will be at the glamor events anyway. There is no threat. A business that can't appreciate what design can do for their bottom line (speaking corporate) doesn't deserve our services. However, accreditation as a way to get our design schools up to speed, IS something that interests me.

True, design doesn't kill. It might injure, but never kill.

I don't see accreditation as a protective measure against hacks. Because you're right -- business that don't know the difference wouldn't care anyway. My job is not being stolen by anyone.

Rather, I see accreditation's benefit in these ways:

1. It establishes an instructional guideline for young professionals entering the field. I think currently, there are probably 10-20,000 design students that graduate yearly. Out of that, I would guess that 20-30% find and retain a job past their first year, and less than 5% remain in the field beyond five years. Part of the problem is that there's no professional path or guidance in design. It's a sink-or-swim, opportunistic, brutally Darwinian profession. For young designers, accreditation could help establish goals to attain and differentiate yourself more fairly. It wouldn't be something elitist, but rather a supplement for those who seek guidance.

2. For working professionals, accreditation is a valuable tool in selling your services. Sure there are clients who won't care. But even if accreditation only brings in 5% more work per year for an average designer, or adds a 5% increase to your value billing, then hell, isn't that worth it? I could use any help I can get.

3. Lastly, accreditation can help unify and raise the level of professionalism in our industry. I know this is an intangible that many of you will disagree strongly about. I can hear it already -- who fucking cares about the hacks just as long as your clients know the difference. The problem is, I think the hacks do damage the profession's perception to the corporate world. Justifying the value of graphic design is a constant battle, whether it's an educated client or not. Accreditation is far from a cure, but it would be a valuable step in the right direction.

--

For all of you who are against accreditation, I'd like to hear why you think it would harm the profession. And let's not just tell stories about great designers you know who don't have formal educations and blah, blah, blah. Let's assume there's a fair way for self-educated designers to gain accreditation. What are other harms that you can foresee? I really am curious.

> Lastly, accreditation can help unify and raise the level of professionalism in our industry. I know this is an intangible that many of you will disagree strongly about. I can hear it already -- who fucking cares about the hacks just as long as your clients know the difference. The problem is, I think the hacks do damage the profession's perception to the corporate world.

I'm with you Tan. I'm still uncertain about how this would truly evolve and devlop in reality? Would we really see an improvement in professionalism/quality because of accreditation? I'm all for it like you, but I have trouble envisioning it happening.

While I completely agree with Kiran, I thought I'd mention:

True, design doesn't kill. It might injure, but never kill.

If you've ever attended a Tufte presentation, he points out how poor design *can* kill. Namely he points out that the first Space Shuttle disaster may have been caused by poorly designed information graphics.

However, I still side with Kiran. It does seem a little bit paranoid on behalf of the industry to insist on some sort of licensing/registration/what-have-you.

As for Tan's second point, I don't know...does accredidation really influence any of your decisions other than the obvious ones like finding a lawyer, accountant, or doctor?

For all of you who are against accreditation, I'd like to hear why you think it would harm the profession.

I don't know if it'd harm anything, but it certainly makes for an exclusive community rather than inclusive and if the goal is to spread the value of design, then I'm thinking inclusive is the better way to go.

Let's assume there's a fair way for self-educated designers to gain accreditation.

Well, that's a silly assumption. ;o)

Honestly, I'm not really sure what the problem is that accredidation is attempting to resolve.

Good points, Darrel and Kiran. As far as harms, professional accreditation could pose the same problems for the field as competitions do: namely that standards change in accordance with the people administering them, which can encourage trendy, inside-the-box solutions. In my opinion it can also encourage complacency.

The 'guide for graphic design buyers' is great. If all businesses heeded this advice, the world would be a better place.

> ...it certainly makes for an exclusive community rather than inclusive.

>...which can encourage trendy, inside-the-box solutions. In my opinion it can also encourage complacency.

These are common concerns, but IMHO, not proven by other accreditation programs.

AIA, AAID (inter.design), and IDSA (indust.d) all have some type or form of accreditation -- and it has raised the quality of work, establish credibility for the professions, and have in no way hindered the creativity or fostered a class of elitist professionals.

To me, the business of design is already elitist on its own. Firms are very guarded, and as we've discussed before, designers in general are very insecure. So to say that accreditation is going to cause elitism where there is none is unrealistic and idealist.

In fact, accreditation might end up demystifying the process of working with a designer or firm more -- giving more access to companies that are intimidated by creative agencies. Accreditation would help to give a perception that their money is responsibly spent. It could lower the barrier of entry for businesses so that , in fact, more designers will be able to find trusting clients in the field.

> As for Tan's second point, I don't know...does accredidation really influence any of your decisions other than the obvious ones like finding a lawyer, accountant, or doctor?

Recent accredited professionals I've used other than mentioned above: mechanic (and dealer service dept.), plumber, arborists/landscaper (our tree got vandalized), day care service, and mortgage lender. I'm sure there are more...

> I'm still uncertain about how this would truly evolve and devlop in reality? Would we really see an improvement in professionalism/quality because of accreditation? I'm all for it like you, but I have trouble envisioning it happening.

There are no examples I can think of where accreditation has lowered the quality or professionalism of the industry. But I agree -- there's no easy answers. It's hard for me to envision also.

You know, personally, it doesn't affect me. It's not that I'm cocky about it, but in truth, I already have my own business and a good track record behind me. I'd like to see accreditation happen for the profession, not because I think it could make me another buck and shut out competitors.

I just don't understand seasoned professionals who are so opposed to lending their experiences and willingness to establish higher business standards for the industry. I think it's a little selfish and short-sighted.

I guess my doubt is more about the how rather than the why. I see the benefits that accreditation might bring, but how — if at all possible — do we measure whether someone is really qualified to be an acredited professional?

Think about what makes a successful designer. None of these are absolute or mutual exclusive.

1. The formal education the designer has earned

2. The years practicing in the field.

3. The clients they've attained and established.

4. The amount of work created, measured by a variety of factors including type, scale, cost, longevity, type(s) of client industries.

5. The reputation and testimonials from peers, coworkers, and clients

6. Business experience attained, including management, development, billings, market milestones, etc.

7. Technology experience attained -- proficiencies, development gains, etc.

8. Awards and recognition, including professional engagements (speaking, judging, exhibitions)

9. Periodicals, trade columns, or books that the designer has contributed to or been recognized in.

and so on....

When you look at it as a creative endeavor, then tangible accomplishments for graphic design are tough to ascertain. But if you examine it as a business profession, then it's easier to start seeing the common standards and competencies that we all acquire in our careers -- regardless of the specialties.

Recent accredited professionals I've used other than mentioned above: mechanic (and dealer service dept.), plumber, arborists/landscaper (our tree got vandalized), day care service, and mortgage lender. I'm sure there are more...

Accredited, or licensed? Big difference there. And it should be noted that there is no real correlation between getting licensed and the quality of service you provide. It merely means you met some basic governmental or association standards and ponied up the application fee.

I just don't understand seasoned professionals who are so opposed to lending their experiences and willingness to establish higher business standards for the industry.

Business standards are one thing...but really, I don't think being accredited raises that bar. I could be wrong, or course. ;)

Hmm, wish I'd seen this 4 days ago. Anyway, I'm late into the fray here, but I'm newly (this year) on the exec. of the GDC/BC.

Initially I joined the GDC because I wanted to connect with other designers. I found the events to be uninspiring and although not snobbish, not inclusive. Mostly people who already knew each other getting together, and really not oriented to discussion or meeting people, unless you're an extrovert--which I think most designers aren't.

So then I joined the board. What an eye opener. The GDC has this big, Helvetica, corporate image--which is good, it's professional and serious. But the weird part is that as Matt said, it's run completely by volunteers who serve for 2 years--more if they're energetic, less if they quit. It's taken me 6 months just to understand my job, and it takes an enormous amount of time. Once I got it figured out, I actually quite enjoy it, but there are times--like when paying clients call--that you just have to drop your GDC responsibilities for a while. With 10 or so board members all in this same state of flux, it takes a long time to get things done. So despite the big image, the GDC is really quite small and local.

The GDC/BC is currently trying to insert some of that passion, and design interest back into the process. Our new pres, Yves Rouselle, is great--he's really trying to do some different things, get things flowing again.

But we're currently without an Events exec, which is a problem. For example, we were going to have a GDC summer picnic, and Yves bravely shouldered the task to take it on (on top of everything else he's doing) and then his house burned down. Guess what? No picnic. So, Keith Tam, got some time and ideas? Email president.bc @ gdc.net and offer yourself up. We are really, really looking for people who want to make some changes, and create a more welcoming, inclusive atmosphere for designers. And we need someone in that Events position NOW, because we have AIGA coming up, and it would sure be nice to actually do something while all those fellow designers are here.

So I've certainly done my share of eye-rolling and complaining about the GDC not doing this or that, but what we really need are members: active members. The more we have, the more money we have and the better events we have, and it just keeps on going.

As for Salazar, I have to say that Terry Fines, who is a student member and the new Education Exec. came onto the board in March or whenever it was (seems like 2 years ago) and was thrown directly into organizing that event. So he got a late start and he was just learning the ropes, AND he was graduating at the same time. I think he did a great job, considering.

Basically, if you want to change things at the GDC, give us your feedback, join, volunteer, whatever.

Myself, I'm just finishing a 16-page full colour newsletter for the GDC/BC which is going to the printer *tomorrow* (if I ever stop nattering on here), and after that I'm drafting up the outline for the next one. Know what I need? Writers. So if you want to research and write a story, email me at communications.bc @ gdc.net.

As for that website ... it's currently under major, major overhaul ... Should be relaunched in the fall.

> Yes, part of being in a Society like the GDC is about networking and meeting people. It's especially important for a profession like ours, but frankly my main interest is to learn and to share our passion. That seems to be lacking at the GDC. I'd really like to see the old GDC several years back, when we had (almost) monthly lectures/presentations/panel discussions on fascinating topics and great guest events like Wolfgang Weingart and Cyan.

Now that is what I like to hear! I think my biggest issue with the GDC is that I would like to see/hear more events that are actually learning experiences, instead of pool parties or picnics. They don't have to be monthly, even a few times a year would be super. I would certainly volunteer if stuff like this was happening.

I have lotsa designer friends to just drink beers with, I want a place where I can go to not only network, but really get passionate and fired up about a topic or learning experience. That is something worth drinking pints over. It has to be happening locally (even in a small way) in every province as well - because some of us can't afford to travel to conferences all over the country on a yearly basis.

As for the accreditation jazz - I think it would be really super to apply accreditation to educational institutions. There are alot of 1 year "guru" programs popping up around my city where you pay a billion dollars for one year of "condensed" learning and then get pumped out into the workforce. I don't like having to compete against this, and I am noticing the local market here is getting saturated because of it. Institutional accreditation would solve this.

Individual accreditation seems to be such a tough thing though. Tan, your list of what makes a designer successful is great - but how are all of those many variables taken to make a solid decision whether someone is worthy or not? It seems so complicated, and I think the design profession is an industry where there is so much gray when it comes to what is a good client or how to measure reputation.

I don't know if it'd harm anything, but it certainly makes for an exclusive community rather than inclusive and if the goal is to spread the value of design, then I'm thinking inclusive is the better way to go.

I agree with you Darrel. I am still also thinking that it would be difficult to find a fair way to accredit self taught designers.

> Accredited, or licensed? Big difference there. And it should be noted that there is no real correlation between getting licensed and the quality of service you provide. It merely means you met some basic governmental or association standards and ponied up the application fee.

I see your point, Darrel. Half of my examples are probably licensed, not accredited.

But in many cases, accreditation is part of licensing. Both are meant to protect the public. But while licensing is a basic, government requirement, accreditation infers a higher standard of industry-measured standards and responsibility.

> As for the accreditation jazz - I think it would be really super to apply accreditation to educational institutions. There are alot of 1 year "guru" programs popping up around my city ... I don't like having to compete against this, and I am noticing the local market here is getting saturated because of it. Institutional accreditation would solve this... Individual accreditation seems to be such a tough thing though. Tan, your list of what makes a designer successful is great - but how are all of those many variables taken to make a solid decision whether someone is worthy or not?

Amanda, notice how you have different attitudes when it comes to a school accreditation versus professional?

Again, I would ask: if accreditation is reasonable and possible for schools, then why does it not make sense to extend the same expectations to professionals? You yourself said that you were tired of having to compete with the "guru" students, while you seem to have no objections competing with people who call themselves designers without any training at all.

Most clients know absolutely nothing about design, yet our industry expects them to understand the difference between a qualified designer and a hack coming out of one of the "guru" schools or worse. And then we complain when those hacks sell logos off eBay for $35.

Accreditation for schools protects students who know nothing about design and how to qualify a school when they begin. In the same vein, accreditation for professionals protects clients who know nothing about design and how to qualify a designer when they are looking for services.

Why does one make sense, and not the other ??!!!

I am not saying one makes sense and not the other. I am saying one is more difficult to achieve than the other!

If reputable schools had accreditation, then it would be something a student would automatically get when they graduate. super. fine. great.

It will be much more difficult to accredit existing professionals. I don't think its fair to expect a designer with lots of experience, great work, and a good reputation to have to go back to school for X amount of time in order to even qualify for accreditation.

Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, I think it is the work that matters in this case. There are so many talented people that just would not fit the mold...people in the industry right now who have BFA's, selt taught skills and whatnot - and I think they deserve some recognition (if they have work to back it up).

This is what I think will be the hard part. Figuring out how to measure who is worthy with existing professionals. So many variables to take into consideration.

Again, I would ask: if accreditation is reasonable and possible for schools, then why does it not make sense to extend the same expectations to professionals?

The idea of accreditation is and should ONLY be to protect the consumer. Accrediation for schools was imposed by the government to protect potential students shopping for a school to attend.

The idea of accrediation in the design field, on the other hand, was created by designers who want to enlist the help of the governmet to make them more competitive in the marketplace. This is totally unfair and manipulative, as Im sure whomever sold the idea to the Canadian governmet did so with the premise that it was something being done to protect the consumer.

I think I'd refuse to get certified based on principle alone. The government isnt here to help designers discourage competition.

> I am not saying one makes sense and not the other. I am saying one is more difficult to achieve than the other!

sorry, i didn't mean to single you out Amanda. I was just responding to the general objections.

So now, to specifically answer your point -- I think the GDC's accreditation process has a way to deal w/ that. As part of the accreditation application process, the designer must submit his or her work and experience to a panel of three reviewers appointed by the GDC. That panel reviews the work, and ascertains the intanglible qualifications that you speak of. IMHO, it's a good and fair way to balance between the objective achievements (formal degrees, business gains) and the subjective talent and skills of a less conventionally developed designer.

And yes, at the end, I agree with everyone that this whole process of accreditation will be next to impossible to implement. Middle East peace is more attainable.

Both are meant to protect the public.

But it's somewhat arbitrary...especially in a subjective field...like graphic design.

No amount of schooling, professional work, or organizational affiliations means you are any better or worse as a graphic designer then the self taught 20 year old just out of tech school.

I don't think it's accreditation I'm against, I just see no plausible way to judge the approved and the not approved. Furthermore, I'm not really sure if the paying customer cares.

To go back to licensing, many people assume a licensed day care is some how more accountable than a non licensed day care. At least in MN, the licensing requirements are well below the common-sense line. For instance, a proper barier between mechanical systems and play area in a basement may consist of chicken wire.

The problem with licensing/accreditation, is that people *think* they are getting something better, but it's really, really tough to actually follow through on that.

Again, I would ask: if accreditation is reasonable and possible for schools, then why does it not make sense to extend the same expectations to professionals?

You can judge schools on curriculum, facilities, straff training, etc. You can't judge schools based on the portfolios of students. While it's probably fair to say that the better school probably has a higher percentage of better portfolios that a poorer school, there are simply way too many exceptions.

>The idea of accrediation in the design field, on the other hand, was created by designers who want to enlist the help of the governmet to make them more competitive in the marketplace.

You may argue that they were misguided, but to accuse them of venality is absurd. The designers who made RGD accreditation a reality invested a huge amount of unpaid hours into the project. Some of those involved were educators, and not competing in the marketplace.

Why is altruism so hard to appreciate?

Maybe there were people involved who weren't paid, but rest assured that someone is going to be making money from this. Personally, I have better things to do with my money than give it to yet another group of self-serving bureaucrats. I'd prefer the government played as small a role in my life as possible.

By the way, what does it cost for a designer to get this altruistic accreditation?

>The idea of accreditation is and should ONLY be to protect the consumer

Perhaps the consumer does not wish to be protected. Maybe they would like to use their own subjective opinion. It may not always be valid in the eyes of the designer, but it is their own. Clients opinions matter most, and they ultimately hold the checkbook.

This argument is brought up once or twice per year, and it always ends the same way: Accreditation is ridiculous when applied to anything that has to do with professional art. Like it or not, design is on some level essentially art. Yes, there is strategy, of course, but ultimately it is art. Art is judged subjectively. Everyone is a designer, and accreditation in design would essentially cause censorship of a vast population of designers.

Let the hacks in. They're not your competition anyway.

>Personally, I have better things to do with my money than give it to yet another group of self-serving bureaucrats.

I couldn't agree more.

Kelly, I completely agree with everything you said. When I said "the idea of accreditation is to protect the consumer," I meant the reason it's necessary for other fields like medicine and law.

Graphic design clients dont need the government to protect them from bad designers. Reputation and accountability are ultimately the the most important things that protect consumers as well as businessmen.

David -- the fact that you've connected accreditation = government = money grubbing scheme = self-serving bureaucrats is absolutely absurd, and just tells me that you have other baggage you feel threatened or antagonistic about. Did you recently get screwed by the IRS or lost a bid for a government job or something?

And thanks for the little lecture about how design is a professional art, Kelly. Gee, I always thought it was like dentistry. So what is architecture design or product design or urban design? Please categorize those professions for me and let me know if it's ok to judge them non-subjectively.

And "everyone is a designer". Sure. Ok, I'll make sure to alert AIGA to that new ephiphany.

I hate to resort to sarcasm, but I can't reply logically to this kind of nonsense rhetorics.

You and Kelly make accreditation sound like the beginnings of a fascist statehood or something.

> The problem with licensing/accreditation, is that people *think* they are getting something better, but it's really, really tough to actually follow through on that.

Darrel -- your example of bad daycare licensing policies shows a failure of implementation, which does not negate the original intent or need for the licensing.

The implementation of any accreditation program is key to its value and ultimate success with consumers. If the accreditation is nothing more than a bureaucratic money-grubbing scheme as David put it, then of course consumers aren't going to give a shit.

But that attitude is totally defeatist and assumes that we designers are a bunch of ignorant morons who can't even set a standard for our own professional competency and quality of work.

> You can judge schools on curriculum, facilities, straff training, etc. You can't judge schools based on the portfolios of students.

wait here. I'm not suggesting that we use the same system of measurement for schools and and professionals.

I'm simply suggesting that if we are able to find a fair, measurable way to judge academic standards -- then we should be able to find a way to judge professional standards.

And "everyone is a designer".

I couldn't tell which side of the argument you were taking. For the record, everyone is a designer. It's a basic human skill. It's just that some of us get to focus on a specific design skillset and improve upon it over time.

Darrel -- your example of bad daycare licensing policies shows a failure of implementation, which does not negate the original intent or need for the licensing.

Tan...real world alert...that's always true.

Yes, I agree completely that accreditation/licensing--in *theory*--are great concepts. But they are never implemented perfectly, and the more subjective the field you are attempting to accreditate is, the more likely the implementation will be way out of whack.

But that attitude is totally defeatist and assumes that we designers are a bunch of ignorant morons who can't even set a standard for our own professional competency and quality of work.

It assumes no such thing. It only assumes that we're human, and that graphic design is a field that can only be judged subjectively--which would certainly make for an exciting accreditation process, but one that would most likely never be really that fair.

I'm simply suggesting that if we are able to find a fair, measurable way to judge academic standards -- then we should be able to find a way to judge professional standards.

I agree. Actually, I agree with that in terms of both acedemic and professional accreditation. The catch is the 'fair and measurable' ways. If you can't do that in a more tangible industry like day-cares or resturaunts (industries that actually have real safety issues) how are you going to do that with graphic design?

BTW...I'm all for professional standards. Guidelines/rules/ethical standards are a good thing. Certainly we don't need to be exclusive about them, though. If you want to join, and use the guidlines, more power to you, but we're not going to police you.

"accreditate"...is that a word?

> I couldn't tell which side of the argument you were taking. For the record, everyone is a designer. It's a basic human skill. It's just that some of us get to focus on a specific design skillset and improve upon it over time.

My point there Darrel was that the lofty statement, "everyone is a designer," beared little relevance to the topic at hand -- professional accreditation. We're talking specifically about professional, working graphic designers here. Not the general idea of what design means to human beings etc. Let's cut the crap a little here.

Because I do my own taxes doesn't make me an accountant. Does the ability to make Kraft mac&cheese make you a chef? Is everyone a nuclear physicist? Know what I mean? That kind of crap.

But I know we're not really disagreeing that much here -- you think accreditation is reasonable and I think the process to get there will be next to impossible. So let's leave it at that.

My point there Darrel was that the lofty statement, "everyone is a designer," beared little relevance to the topic at hand -- professional accreditation. We're talking specifically about professional, working graphic designers here. Not the general idea of what design means to human beings etc. Let's cut the crap a little here.

The original poster's point, I believe, that everyone *is* a designer. The only thing that makes you a professional is if you get paid to do it or not.

But I know we're not really disagreeing that much here -- you think accreditation is reasonable and I think the process to get there will be next to impossible. So let's leave it at that.

Agreed.

So...what should we argue about, then? ;o)

Oh god, there's tons of choices -- InDesign vs. Quark, AIGA, UPS (or not, we kind of agreed if I recall), Wonder Woman vs. Cat Woman, the possibilities are endless...

Btw, I had dinner w/ Kit Hinrichs of Pentagram SF a few weeks back when he was in town judging a local show. We talked about the new UPS logo, and it was damn interesting to hear what he had to say. I don't feel it's appropriate to air his opinions for him. But it's not difficult to guess...

the fact that you've connected accreditation = government = money grubbing scheme = self-serving bureaucrats is absolutely absurd

I hate to resort to sarcasm, but I can't reply logically to this kind of nonsense rhetorics.

I cant complain about the sarcasm (since i resorted to it myself), but the name-calling i could do without.

So, Tan, I'll admit that I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the government WONT be involved? ...or are you saying that the public really DOES need the government to protect them from bad graphic design? Are you saying that if the whomever is involved wont profit from it?

Pardon me for being so "absurd" as to think that I shouldn’t be forced or intimidated into paying someone for the privilege of having them decide whether or not I’m competent to make a living at something I've been doing for the past 10 years.

> but the name-calling i could do without.

hey David, I was careful not to make this personal. I didn't -- what name did I call you? Your point is "absurd", not you.

> So, Tan, I'll admit that I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the government WONT be involved?

Accreditation has nothing to do with government. It's a self-instituted industry thing. I think you're confusing accreditation with licensing. AIA (Am Inst. of Architects) has a long standing accreditation program that has nothing to do with any government institution.

Man I totally agree with Tan on this blog.

to add my two cents;

After attending James Montalbano's presentation at Typecon on Designing Type for Highway Signage, I would say that in some instances, graphic design does leave lives at risk. Graphic design is much more that magazine spreads and websites, it encompasses every aspect and reason for visual communication... and only a fraction of graphic design pertains to commerce - which I think is what is skewing peoples perspective in this blog to the validity of accreditation. I'll tell you that I would feel much safer knowing that crucial information/graphic/signage is designed by a registered graphic designer and not put into the hands of a hack who knows the right people. Accreditation obtained through a process and examination can definitely weed out title holders from competent practitioners.

I totally agree that the problem lies mainly in the implementation. Maybe what we need accreditation for is ethical standards and professional practice alone, and not how good a designer you are? While some parts of design is indeed quantifyable (for example, how legibile is a highway signage typeface), it is mostly a subjective thing. I don't think it's even possible to agree on what design is — everyone has different ideas and every designer has a different 'mission' or agenda. Design is such a multidisciplinary field (and I'm only talking about graphic design here).

Wow, I go away for a few days and this stream erupts! Very good dialogue folks and quite intelligent. I'm impressed.

To the comment about government being involved in accreditation. In Canada, once you get the legislation (which is provincial, not federal), the government is not involved at all. The legislation recognizes that your organization has proved that it represents a proportionate amount of people practising a profession, and you therefore have the right to dictate education and competency standards necessary to be proficient in that profession. The government folks don't care what those standards are so don't worry about them being in control of designers.

RGD Ontario brings in over $200,000 (my guesstimate based on $300 per member and roughly 700 professional members, plus associates, provisionals and students) in membership dues each year, of which they have previously transferred a little over $20,000 to GDC National ($30 per professional member). They have 3 paid staff and an office so I wouldn't describe it as a huge money grubbing operation by any stretch of the imagination. They're frugal and do a hell of a lot with limited resources. GDC National has an operating budget of roughly $100,000 per year and we have one parttime staff person and an office in Ottawa. We're uber-frugal!!

My personal feeling (not official GDC policy) is that accreditation is no better for current practising designers than what the GDC currently offers which is 4 letters after your name (MGDC or LGDC) based on the opinion of your peers that you're a qualified designer. As I've already stated, the people that really benefit from accreditation are students, future designers and clients. On that basis alone I feel it is a worthy pursuit.

As to exciting, inspirational events every month. How much are you willing to pay?

>Very good dialogue folks and quite intelligent. I'm impressed.

Well Matt, this is Speak Up after all. We swear and curse, we make bad jokes and we talk about gas (specially Tan) but when it comes to down to getting serious and talking about topics like accreditation this is the place to be. Glad you could join us.

...and porn names. Don't forget the porn names Armin, or "Bullet Point" if I recall

I found this quote by Mr Keedy while perusing Heller's latest book, Citizen Designer:

"For the most part, the pseudo-profession of graphic design does not require a license because it is satisfactorily regulated by the marketplace"

You could say that this quote out of its context is hard to evaluate. But believe me, its meaning won't change in any context.

Oh, and pseudo-profession? Ouch!