Completely agree I have the web bias, it's what I grew up making, yet I think the further comparisons you mention (autocad + c++ (tbh, no knowledge there)) separate the implementation from the final artifact much too abstractly for it to be a viable recommendation for career designers. Want to design a stool? Learn joints. Want to make an app? Learn flows. I wanted to make cool shit happen on a screen when you clicked, so I'm learning javascript.
You're right in saying that design schools can't offer the specialisation of a particular production mode to all students, it's not feasible. Yet what is feasible, is that the interest is there, and it can be built upon by one lecturer or third party resource (on recommendation) to a particular student. There are people who I graduated with that gained an incredible amount of print production knowledge in their final year that stands to them completely, while I focused on "hey why can't i make stuff on this website move and interact in a more delightful[0] way.
The main point here is that there is a investment in learning any production technique, and anyone who has that knowledge will always be more valuable than someone who does not. The choice for designers is to work it out for themselves if it's worth learning it for what they want to do.
Now I've gotten ranty :( sidebar: That's a fierce irish name you have, are you from Eire? :P
There are plenty of ways that designers get their hands dirty in production, but this is enrichment to improve their design capabilities, not skills they will put 10,000 hours into. I guess I'm not so much against "designers must know how to code" as I am against "designers must code on the job and be good at it." To me, this de-values design itself and takes away valuable cycles from its practice.
In experimental prototyping situations, you'll see designers learn the non-design skills they need to build their prototypes and express their ideas. That's great, but we must never mistake prototypes for products (prototyping is a distinct activity from production with different goals). So a designer might code, but they might not test well, or write comments, or any of the other million things you need to do for production-level programs.
I've been in hiring situations before, and I often find those who identify as "designer programmers" to be neither great designers nor great programmers. There are of course some great designgineers out there, but they probably won't apply to our company :(
Disclaimer: I'm a self-identified programming language designer whose niche field necessitates programming (since we are designing for programmers...duh!), but I have a lot of design studio experience working as a prototyper (never as the designer) on more conventional areas (web, mobile, even old-style surface when it was a table and not a tablet). Not Irish, just typical mixed up American with Scottish and Irish heritage (among everything else).
Going back to your comment a couple of levels above, I think it would be wonderful if more designers could produce their designs in a form that's closer to to the end environment instead of Photoshop and tools like that.
Of course there is something to be said for people specializing in what they're good at, while also listening to others with complementary skills.
It seems like it would be a good idea for a design team to have an embedded developer involved in the design process from the beginning. (I mean a developer "embedded" in the design team, not an embedded systems developer.)
In a web design shop, this would be somebody who could make the jQuery plugins or whatever libraries/utilities are needed to implement, or at least do a proof of concept of the trickier parts of the designs. Have a fancy transition in your design and don't know if it can work and not be janky? Then it's your team's responsibility to not only provide the design, but the basic jQuery plugins to demonstrate that it works and give the main dev team a head start on it.
Maybe I'm speculating on this because it sounds like the kind of job that would be fun for me. As long as the designers treated me like an equal member of the design team and not just "their coder." :-)
> It seems like it would be a good idea for a design team to have an embedded developer involved in the design process from the beginning.
Ya, that used to be my job. This actually happens at Microsoft (my company), you'll get one or two people who can code and do prototypes working directly in the design studio working more directly with the designers (also useful for calling out BS when the devs say they can't do something).
You're right in saying that design schools can't offer the specialisation of a particular production mode to all students, it's not feasible. Yet what is feasible, is that the interest is there, and it can be built upon by one lecturer or third party resource (on recommendation) to a particular student. There are people who I graduated with that gained an incredible amount of print production knowledge in their final year that stands to them completely, while I focused on "hey why can't i make stuff on this website move and interact in a more delightful[0] way.
The main point here is that there is a investment in learning any production technique, and anyone who has that knowledge will always be more valuable than someone who does not. The choice for designers is to work it out for themselves if it's worth learning it for what they want to do.
Now I've gotten ranty :( sidebar: That's a fierce irish name you have, are you from Eire? :P
[0] Kill me