[jsiarto]

This again? This debate surfaces every other month and the arguments are always the same. Basically, it all comes down to the job and the person. In big organizations, sometimes designers can get away with only being Photoshop people. In smaller firms, designers have to be more flexible and should be expected to implement their own designs.

Also, when did HTML and CSS become "code?" These are markup and style languages and are the very basic building block of the web. If you design for the web, you should be able to implement those designs in HTML and CSS. I wouldn't, however, expect that same designer to build out the Rails backend.

[pc86]

We simply don't work with designers who can't go from wireframe to PSD to fully-functional HTML and CSS on their own. There are simply too many designers who understand that HTML and CSS are not "coding," they're designing, and they're part of the craft.

For every ten good designers who are PSD-only, there are at least as many who will send you HTML and CSS and probably 2-3 who are capable of building a template in your framework/CMS of choice. My last subcontractor was a very good designer based out of Iowa who specialized in CodeIgniter templates. I've worked with similar folks who specialized in WordPress themes or in .NET Master Page/template setups.

[muratmutlu]

Do you have a link to the final designs? I would like to see what this unicorn produced

[jiggy2011]

Exactly this. I have worked with PSD only designers in the past who didn't do "HTML programming" and would send blobs of binary files.

I realised that I was wasting about 50% of my time figuring out CSS, fighting with the box model and browser quirks. The end result was me just producing crap CSS that I don't think even implemented what the designer had designed properly.

Getting a full CSS/HTML template & all elements actually means I can get on with the shit that I'm supposed to be getting on with.

[hilko]

On the first paragraph I generally agree with you, but I'd like to point out that in some cases, also in small teams, being a designer unencumbered by the limitations of the technology can be important. As part of the team, it can cause some healthy conflict in trying to make things work despite initial technological barriers. Many great things came out of a disregard of 'what seems possible at first sight', and in some cases this is a good thing. You're not saying the opposite of what i just said, but I just wanted to point this out.

As for the second paragraph: in my experience the type/manner of work involved with HTML and CSS might be closer to programming than to design. I cannot back this up with research, but it's what I've noticed working with designers. I suspect it has something to do with the level of abstraction involved.

For example, I dislike the front-end CSS and HTML part of my work, because so much seems to be based on memorization of CSS tricks and writing dirty HTML that confuses semantic structure from layout. But I can wrap my head around it anyways, and it's more annoying than difficult. But I've worked with many designers who equally dislike CSS and HTML, but lack the fundamental ability/experience to figure it out properly, much as they tried.