Designer-types

How many kinds of designer are there? And how many kinds within Industrial Design alone? There are Product Designers, there are (User) Experience Designers, there are Design Strategists, there are Systems Designers and many other kinds, some of which are only self-identified. But if we set those types of distinctions aside, how many different types of designers are there? But this I mean the essential character of the designer? I think that this might be an interesting examination of the nature of our activity and how it is practiced.

When I was thinking about writing about this, the words to a song from 1971 came back to me, when Kris Kristofferson sang this about Johnny Cash: “he’s a poet, he’s a picker, he’s a prophet, he’s a pusher, he’s a pilgrim and a preacher,…” (The Pilgrim: Chapter 33). We, the Industrial Designers, have as many personas as the Man-in-Black.

One type I will refer to (not unkindly) as the Jocks. These physically active designers like to design the kinds of toys they want to play with and the tools they like to use.

Another type is the Poets. These designers may be more interested in the creation of evocative experiences than in the technical details.

An additional type is the Mothers. These designers (of both genders) are particularly interested in nurturing and protecting the vulnerable, especially the young and/or helpless.

The Preachers. These designers are interested in defining the correct path to design nirvana and seek followers.

Also the Con(fident) ones, who don’t mind being credited for the good work that someone else did.

Of course, we seldom neatly fit into a single category and the categories themselves are both elastic and fluid. The late Jan Kypers once referred to me as a form-beautiful kind of designer. I took that as a compliment. Not all of my colleagues have been so flattering.

I feel it is important to both acknowledge the range of differences and to show respect for them. Some designers get cranky when others are not able to, from memory, define the appropriate draft angle for a specific type of polymer in a specific type of tool. Others think everyone should be able to define the number of head options plus grade, type and class of a particular variant of shouldered machine screw.

Conversely, some designers feel that the only validation for design work is through the glossy pages of consumer magazines. Some feel that winning awards is the highest glory and others feel that the same awards represent the kiss-of-death when it comes to the bottom line.

Design has always been a complicated endeavor. And it has only become more so. Not only do we need to know about materials and technologies, we also need to know about ethnographic research. We need to know about user interfaces and marketing strategies. We need to know how design is working in Europe and in Asia. There is really no end to the useful things we ought to know. And realistically, we can’t. So we are more likely to work in teams. And the smart teams are assembled to reflect and benefit from the contributions of the propeller-heads, the dreamers, and the schmoozers.

Our schools of design reflect the multiple approaches that we can take and this is as it should be. Ultimately, the tent we are in is big enough for all of us and we can be utilized in our own ways for our own strengths.

It has been pointed out to me that the profile we adopt, that of Industrial Designer, begins with an ‘I.’ And there is definitely no shortage of ego in our ranks. We can be a pretty fractious bunch, and competitive and even back biting if not backstabbing. That’s a pity. Our over-arching concern of being of benefit to others ought to allow for lots of tolerance for our individual foibles and proclivities and preferences and diverse ways of approaching and solving problems. There certainly are enough of them, the problems, to keep all of us productively busy.

Paul Epp is a professor at OCAD University, and chair of its Industrial Design department.