It also sounds like you're the type of programmer that doesn't treat designers with any respect, so they likely reciprocate -- the type that doesn't like to collaborate, but just boss people around (it's more than apparent from your post that you sneeringly look down upon the design profession). In short, you come across like a huge jerk and I can't imagine what it must be like to work with you.

Let me see, according to you, designers that are "great to work with" (the ones that just shut-up and do whatever you tell them) produce "eye pollution". The ones that are "difficult" (have opinions and give input whether you want to hear it or not) end up producing "incredible work", but you just hate working with them.

Ever consider that the problem might be you?

I've contracted a designer before (an HNer, mind you) that literally told me that he was working on the design for about 3 weeks, without showing me any form of progress whatsoever. On the last day we were working together, he said, "I've been busy, and I haven't had time to work on it. Find another designer." He had been jerking me around the entire time without doing an hour of the work, and later admit it.

This has happened on more than one occasion. He had a brilliant portfolio.

The ones that are difficult aren't difficult because they give me opinions; in fact, that's what helps to make a great designer. I like creative people that come up with their own ideas.

On each corner, write:

> Quality Work > Timely Delivery > Economical Price

You're ONLY ever allowed to choose TWO.

> If you want quality work produced in a timely fashion, then expect to pay top-dollar.

> If you want work turned around fast and don't have any money to spend, expect the quality to be crap.

> If you want quality work and don't have a big budget, expect it to be attended to whenever the the service provider has some free time.

It is a maxim of business that you will never escape.

This is true of any profession, and is especially true of both programmers and designers alike.

If you are paying proper compensation, you should never have a problem getting quality work, by a designer that makes delivery of your goods a priority. Perhaps you found a bad apple, and that is unfortunate. If so, then the market should weed them out in time. But you say the designer did great work, and it sounds like they had plenty of good-paying projects elsewhere and you simply got back-burnered (and they were not candid with you, as they should have been). I've seen it happen a dozen times is every line of work.

----------

I forgive you for how you came across in your initial post. I'm also told that I'm a friendly fellow who sometimes comes across as... blunt, in writing.

Some time ago I tried to find a copywriter to help me with a marketing campain. I talked with two people, and both were very interested, actually enthusiastic when I told them the concept. Both said (which made me protest and feel rather unconfortable) that they don't want to discuss compensation in the beginning, part because they want to give the project a shot anyways just to see what it looks like, and part because they don't know the amount of work beforehand.

After a week one of them didn't answer my phone calls, and the other sent a couple of texts completely off-topic, and obviously not very worked. I ended up writing the texts myself.

The moral of the story is that it's not a money problem. But that a percentage of "artistic types", in both mine and OP's experience, tend to show less professionalism then desired.

Then stop communicating like that. Do you also say that to those you work with, when called out on something: "I realize that I sounded like a bit of a dick in the meeting, but that's just how I communicate."? Nine out of ten times, you won't be called out and people will just think you are a dick. If you are already aware you sound like a dick, why on earth should others not think that you are in fact a dick? It's easy to give people bad impression, it's easy to lose respect and it's hard to gain it and fix that impression. Just don't give them a reason to think you're a dick in the first place.

Find someone with good recommendations, contact the businesses they include in their portfolio and ask how the project went. Find someone who's clients would actually recommend and you're more likely to have a good experience because you've established that the designer has a track record for delivering a good product and providing a good customer experience.

Also, how much were you paying? A lot of designers (well, a lot of people) don't want to say no. You can oftentimes talk people into working for less than they think they are worth... Which leads to them de-prioritizing your work. If you're the least lucrative bit of work that they have, it's not good.

And, when it comes to hiring (contractor or otherwise), you've GOT TO DO THE WORK. Ask them for references, call them, and ask them hard questions.

You know that when you emulate a dick so thoroughly, it's very hard for people outside your brain to differentiate your simulation from a real one.

can you elaborate on "but be extremely difficult to work with" -- ??. How a designer who produced excellent stuff was very difficult to work with?.

Not to be judgemental but I wonder if people that do work for Zarathu for the first time might have trouble communicating if this is his usual style. And as a result dont get chance to build a working relationship. It happens a lot.

I personally like direct people but plenty don't :D

checked

EDIT: I do sympathise, finding really good people to contract work to is an absolute pain.

It's good to know he's different in real life, though.

We may as well make sure that we're on shaky footing, then, so long as we're rushing to judgements about people we've never met. Seems like a constructive way to start a conversation.

Edit: Really, the sensible thing to do would be to answer the question, rather than rant about how our internal Internet-psychologist has provided us with shining insight into someone who is potentially on another continent.

Edit edit: Not that any of this is really directed toward you; I'm just ranting myself. :P

He titled his post by stating that Designers "suck."

Then he had a rant about why he thought Designers "suck."

Then made a request for Designers to contact him if they want to work with him.

All I did was quote from his own post, and point out how it came across. Apparently a lot of other people agreed.

I was paraphrasing. I believe it was a fair enough summary of your point. To make sure we're on the same page, I'm mostly looking at this part:

Let me see, according to you, designers that are "great to work with" (the ones that just shut-up and do whatever you tell them) produce "eye pollution". The ones that are "difficult" (have opinions and give input whether you want to hear it or not) end up producing "incredible work", but you just hate working with them.

Deliberately or otherwise, that is needlessly condescending and aggressive. What's more, you pulled your parenthetical statements out of the air - the OP never explained what made certain designers difficult to work with. You simple assumed that the worst plausible interpretation was the correct one.

All I did was quote from his own post, and point out how it came across. Apparently a lot of other people agreed.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but from my perspective the argument I was just pointing out how he comes across; I didn't actually say he was like that is entirely unsatisfying. (Whether other people agree with either of us or not is, I feel, immaterial to my point here).

For instance, I could suggest that your original post gives me the impression that you are a not-entirely-pleasant person who is looking for opportunities to be miserable - it would be rather unfair of me to then immediately backtrack by saying "I didn't say you were like that, I just said it gave me the impression you were like that."

The possibility that the OP was legitimately frustrated by working repeatedly with designers who actually did suck was apparently not entertained by you - instead, you leapt from his expressed frustration to the hypothesis[1] that he is, more-or-less, an asshole. Behaviour of that sort reduces the value of the discussions that go on here, imho.

[1] If I were in a less charitable mood, I would say "conclusion".

it doesnt need to be a verifiable fact, it never is, the original post came off to at least me and chris (and possibly 41 others) as condescending and part of a common problem developers have while communicating with designers.

it may be wrong, but it certainly doesnt detract from the discussion, this branch however, does.

Ole Martin Kristiansen: http://piraja.no

Does outstanding work, plain and simple. I'm a Django developer, and I've worked with him on a couple of projects. Without prior knowledge to the way Django templates work, he was able to pick up very fast. Has good knowledge of Wordpress. (Full disclosure: I developed the system behind that site)

Simon Bognø: http://simonsays.no

As you can see on his site, I've already made a public recommendation. :-) Fantastic fellow, also does tremendous work. Has good knowledge of Wordpress, and was able to get an understanding of Django's templates quickly.

I don't really do a lot in the Rails space, so I can't tell you if they're a great fit there… But all in all I'd say they're great designers, and more important, great people to work with.

Edit:

Oh, and Jesse Bennett-Chamberlain of http://31three.com markets himself as a person who provides "Creative services for the design-challenged developer". Never talked to the guy, though.

(Well, that was easy. I wish I could up-vote this 100 times.)

I preferred the third one because their website was more usable -- all work was on one page and all I had to do was scroll down. Unlike the others where I had to click specific projects then view pictures 1, 2, 3, 4... real turn-off when I'm trying to easily compare all three together.

The third also looks like there has been a real effort and focus on usable websites without a disregard for looks which is essentially what I would be looking for.

These two are not the kind of guys you'll find on crowdSPRING, but they're not the most expensive either. I can't provide you with any absolute "project total" numbers, but the first one I mentioned (Ole Martin Kristiansen, piraja.no) usually goes for about €75/hour on larger projects. In my experience, he's always worked quickly and to the point.

The second one is probably in that range as well, although I can't make any guarantees (and he's not currently on GTalk).

For awhile I was in a business partnership where I wrote code and I worked with a designer. One day a friend told us that she had started a new yoga studio and she wanted to show us her new business card, which was done in the shape of a bookmark - long and narrow. At the top was a photo, at the bottom was a quote from Hinduism. The quote was about acceptance and suffering.

The next day myself and my partner were at restaurant. The service was terrible. I jokingly repeated the quote about acceptance and suffering. My partner gave me a blank look.

"I'm quoting from that business card that we saw yesterday," I said.

"What quote?" she asked.

"The text at the bottom."

"I don't remember it."

"It was under the photo."

She then began describing the photo. She remembered in astonishing detail - camera angle, lighting, pose, shadows. I hardly remembered it at all.

It struck me that I had a good memory for text, whereas my partner had a good visual memory. And I've noticed that is fairly common division among programmers and designers.

The point of this story is that programmers and designers have brains that are wired in very different ways. I assume some of that difference in wiring is essential for any of us to be good at what we do.

Having said all that, I'd say the best designer I've worked with, and who is currently open to accepting free-lance work, is Darren Hoyt: http://www.darrenhoyt.com/

I specialize in interface design for web applications.

My standard rate is $75/hour.

Of course design needs time to bake in the oven. You can't grind out a website every two weeks. I normally design a page and then forget about it for at least a day so I can get a fresh look at it. Sometimes you stumble upon the right design the first time, sometimes you need to go through dozens of ideas. It's all very unpredictable.

For the application itself that is a different story. It is a tremendous amount of work designing a app from the ground up so we are talking 80-100k at least. (I did all the HTML + CSS as well) Took me about a year worth of weekends to get it where it is right now. Being a co-founder I also got to make a lot of decisions without any input so it makes things move a lot faster.

I am co-founding a startup and much of the design work will be done by me. Would you be willing to share any tips? What I would really like to know is how are those 160 hours spent? (160hours*$75=$12000)

The software life cycle is well documented in a number of methodologies: XP, iterative, water fall etc. But when it comes to the design phase of a web app I feel left in the dark.

What I am wondering is what techniques are you using during those 160 hours, in what order and what percentage is spent on each?

----------------------------------

For example: (a quick guess) it would be something like this:

- gather requirements - 10 hours

- draw mock ups on paper - 20 hours

- draw prototypes in illustrator - 20 hours

- make designs in illustrator - 50 hours

- review with customer (self)- 10 hours

- iterate on designs in illustrator - 50 hours

-----------------------------------

Do you have any tricks of the trade (http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/how_to/tricks_of_the_...)?

Start with a specific section of your app and create a mockup in Photoshop. Work on it until you are happy and then implement it. Don't do 10 different variations. Don't worry if you don't know how everything is going to fit together. Just get it working so you can move onto a different page.

The first designs we implemented at Guestlist were pretty terrible in retrospect. It had a lot of fatal logic flaws. We had no idea what our initial feature set would be. We knew we needed a public event pages so we started there. However, as we added more and more pages we realized our first couple of pages where shit so went back and iterated over them. Given enough time and iterations things will start taking shape. Just take a look at the very first mockup I did: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/410315/event.jpg It looks nothing like what we currently have. For reference here is the current public page: http://guestlistapp.com/events/7311

Now, it may seem like you could follow the 37Signals route and simply skip the Photoshop step altogether and get to using it faster. _Don't do this._ You cannot be creative with CSS. The Photoshop stage gives you a chance to do crazy things and not think with boxes.

This can also be applied to websites. The current Guestlist website is very weak in my opinion. It was created over a weekend. There is a much improved version in the pipeline. Not a radically different site, but an evolution that iterates over the weak areas.

The key is to never stop iterating. Never lock down the design. Never let somebody tell you you can't do something because it's inconsistent with the rest of the site. Just change the rest of the site too! Design must evolve constantly.

I've heard it said that Haystack really just shows you the middle quartiles of designers. The top quartile don't need to list themselves; the bottom quartile don't have an exciting enough portfolio to do so. I dunno, maybe there are some great designers on there, but having some form of testimonials is sorely lacking.

And I don't agree with your view, Haystack has some outstanding designers and agency. Only problem is it costs $99 a month to have a big listing, which is too expensive for most freelancers.

I would also suggest asking designers at http://themeforest.net/ if they do freelance work. Template designers must deal with design and code as well as customer support. So they're typically easy to work with and not overly concerned about "art".

Considering that attitude of closeminded zealotism, you are probably the problem.

The title of this post screams 'most designers suck'. You seem like the kind of guy that gives others the feeling that he expect them to be mindreaders and that scorns those that don't grasp what he means fast enough. That doesn't work with most of the lesser gods, who are nonetheless still way above average. It makes them feel bad about themselves and about you.

I get the exact same impression as Chris_G: there is a communication problem that you can solve. According to kyro, you are wonderful to work with. Let me say this: I've got a colleague that I love to work with. I'll be indebted forever to him, for making me a much better software engineer than I would ever have been without someone like him to teach me. Nevertheless, he has a corrosive personality. It is only because I acknowledge his superiority and have come to understand that he doesn't mean it in a bad way, that I can get along with him. However, most people will not get to that conclusion, either because they have less much interaction with him or because he simply isn't superior to them in their field. With them, he doesn't communicate in a constructive fashion. If you criticise something, it doesn't matter whether you are right: it matters whether you can convince the other party; whether you can explain that you are right, without making them feel wrong.

There are designers who focus on _design_ and don't realize that communication skills are the most vital design skill one can possess. It's important because if someone is agitated it is usually a result of misunderstanding, because it's work not personal, and true understanding is the only way to produce effective work. I find it very frustrating communicating with project managers and I'd like to get inside their heads so I could grasp why they won't allow things that will produce effective work. I'm sure it's something about my communication. This is something I hope to improve on. What are they thinking?!

I will drop you an email, even though you've found someone. You never know... :) Jen

I believe it is because the great designers don't approach their work as a job, but as art. Once that is their mindset, it is nearly impossible to offer any criticism. By labelling themselves an 'artist', they make themselves immune to any commentary, and in fact any criticism you offer just feeds their deluded view of themselves as a persecuted genius.

I've done my share of back-end and front-end developement (php, coldfusion, and of course html, css, jquery, etc.) before focusing on design, so I generally work well with programmers.

I consider myself fairly easy to work with, although to be fair I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I hate being "remote-controled" by a client (like all designers).

I've done a lot of UI work lately but I can do regular websites too.

Unfortunately, this won't tell you what they're like to work with so maybe ask for a reference. Setting a series of project deadlines / goals upfront should also help.

It can also be tricky to work on a brief over email if you've not met the client in person. I find it's always a good idea to speak to any remote clients on the telephone as that gives them the opportunity to talk you through their ideas and brief. A proper conversation can bring up questions and ideas that wouldn't necessarily come up in an email exchange.

In the past, I've found it hard to find good developers. If you're not a developer, it's difficult to tell whether someone is good just by looking at the sites they've worked on. I've come across several developers who talked a good game but couldn't deliver before now. The agency I used to work at for example, hired a few developers who weren't up to the job. At least with design work, you can judge the visual aspects.

Links to my portfolio and company sites are in my profile if you're interested in working with me.

I'm not sure what Brandon charges for just designs, but basic websites generally start at $3k. I believe Mando is typically more expensive, but he also has more experience with branding and advertising, if that's what you need.

I've been friends with Antonio for years, and can attest to the quality and professionalism he puts into his work.

She is a member of our tribe and used to working with 2 uber open source computer scientist geeks that we are at (rmdstudio.com). She is actually dating a young oxford post doctorate mathematician.

But she doesn't work for people, she only works with them. So instead of asking her to send in a portfolio, perhaps you could contact her and let her know that you need some design help.

http://jasonsantamaria.com/

http://www.happycog.com/design/kongregate/

He put together the redesign of ErrorHelp for us (and the new Disqus and Etherpad, too, I believe).

Also, we've been having decent luck at 99designs, where we're trying a contest right now for TinyArrows: http://ta.gd/99

Good hunting.

When looking for a designer, pay close attention to not just their blog design, but to the names on their portfolio. Who have they worked for and how they solved design problems for them matters just as much as the quality of their work.

A "good designer" should know how to work with you, to reflect your vision and walk you through (hopefully) an iterative process of design. They should communicate their approach pretty early on, telling you how they plan to solve your design/user interaction problems and let you know exactly what to expect.

And for the record:

Any design project should start with Information Architecture (IA), usually meaning sitemaps and wireframes and hopefully a prototype of some kind. You may not think you need it, but this is a crucial first step to "design." It allows the designer to reflect your features in a lightweight deliverable, making sure you are both on the same page. One they can quickly iterate on to flesh out the user interactions.

(Any client that comes to me with wireframes already done, usually costs more not less, as we still need to go through the process in order for me to get up to speed. If they are already done it means a lot of design decisions have already been made without me and they will be very hard to undo for the sake of the users best interests. A seasoned designer comes with a lot of experience and best practices, which can help considerably on any project.)

IA should be the bulk of a design engagement and will entail a lot of back and forth with you, and should start right after a brief getting to know the project period, typically called "Discovery." If that doesn't happen consider it a red flag. Scheduling can be a problem at times, but the schedule should be understood on both ends at the beginning.

After IA comes Design, which is typically done in Photoshop, which is great for creating designs, but major changes can eat up a lot of time (and money). It is crucial that the layout, navigation and interactions are all agreed to (and don't change) before design begins.

If you are skinning a web app and doing design in parallel, then you need a good CSS designer, and Photoshop can be skipped, but that is an entirely different type of design project. You can use a junior level resource here, but it could take more time and iterations than a traditional design process. For this type of project I might recommend a designer that has a good rep for creating skins and themes.

A good designer will limit the number of "comps" or unique designs you do as well as the "rounds of revision" per each design in the estimate and contract. I never recommend that you ask a designer to do more than one comp, it only multiplies that cost and the client gets little extra in the end because of it. (It's like telling the designer that you know more about design then they do and they often produce one good design and two shitty ones because of it. Any client asking for multiple comps is a red flag to me that approval is going to be a pain in the ass, and they often get charged accordingly.) Instead look for lots of rounds of revision so you can work iteratively to get that just right design.

That all being said, understand that design is very subjective. A good designer knows this and has an approach to figuring out how to create the right design for you and more importantly your users. You should get a sense of this right away, if not, then ask them how they plan to create it. Be honest with them about your tastes, your internal stakeholders and most importantly listen to your designer and their experiences. And for god's sake treat them as an equal partner and not as a slacker art school student.

The design of your product will be one of the most important decisions you make. It will establish the first and often only impression of your product that your end users will make. I've seen it a hundred times over a bad initial design can be a very costly mistake, costing a lot more to undo. It establishes trust and understanding of how your product will work. And remember that design isn't a perfect process, but a good designer should get you a hell of lot closer to your goal.

You'll notice that I haven't really answered your question. It sounds like you need to think a bit more about what type of designer you need and what they need to do for you before moving forward. Once you figure that out, getting a designer to suit your needs becomes a lot easier.

I have a few related articles I wrote about the business of web design ages ago, but should still be relevant, that should hopefully help understand the business of designers a bit more:

http://flingmedia.com/articles/pricing-a-project/ http://flingmedia.com/articles/the-agency-model-is-dead/

Good luck.

-Brian