The inaugural debate of the Designer's Debate Club, part of the Beyond Beta program, was held at General Assembly on October 11, 2012. Moderated by Jeremy Fisher, founder of debate host Wander, it was well attended with roughly 70 people present, and just as many on the waiting list. Arguing for the Proposition were Allan Yu, Jon Troutman, and Cameron Koczon. The Opposition team consisted of Andy Mangold, Keenan Cummings, and Matias Corea.

Getting started with some definitions, and overcoming some audio trouble, Jeremy established “code” as meaning writing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It wasn't explicitly stated, but “web design” was assumed to mean the visual design, the look and feel of a website. There was also a drinking game in play, with the trigger words being any cussing, “code”, and “design”. A pre-debate vote to gauge the baseline audience opinion showed a significant majority sided with the Proposition.

Opening the debate was Allan Yu, for the Proposition. He started off appearing to frame the debate as British tweed, representing “taxation without representation”, versus America and “James Dean”. This seeming distraction gave way to his real point that learning to code is independence for designers. Allan argued that it lets them “not rely on developers” and be empowered. Designers who know how to code “don't need to burden developers with minute details”.

Jon Troutman followed Allan, bringing up the point of using appropriate tools, and that web design is “experience design, not a singular product” like a poster. Finishing off the Proposition opening, Cameron reiterated the Proposition's points, having thought a lot about it on the subway ride over and “figured it all out”.

Andy Mangold opened up for the Opposition, starting with a focus on the specific topic wording. He stated that “must” is a dangerous word, and splitting expertise leads to “shitty code, shitty design”. (Drink x 4.) Keenan Cummings began his time on the “mysteries of the human body”, with his main point being that “tools have always been a hack.” He argued that code is not an abstraction the way Illustrator is to paper; it is the language used. Matias Corea rounded out the Opposition opening with the idea that code limits imagination.

Following the openining, a series of floor speeches alternating Proposition and Opposition were presented by members of the audience.

A speech for the Proposition suggested that it's an issue of pragmatics. Design often takes a back seat to function, and that designers owe it to their design to make it real. Another pointed out that web designers are not making paintings. They “have to design interaction, not be an interaction designer”. A third argued that constraints from code are beneficial, and foster creativity.

Opposition speeches argued that the constraints code creates for designers are unhelpful. Learning what tools are available is not the same as learning to code. Architecture was brought up by one speaker as an example, where materials experts are brought in to demonstrate what's possible. This gives architects the opportunity to respond to the limits, and push the capabilities of the materials beyond expectation. Along these lines, another speaker mentioned Steve Jobs as an example of pushing for the ideal, getting the developers to do things they didn't think possible, and succeeding. One speech suggested that a designer who can code isn't the answer to a management problem.

Cameron began the rebuttal claiming that to say learning things stifles creativity is condescending. He then brought up the idea of HTML & CSS as a bridge, a common language. Designers wouldn't say those languages are design, but developers wouldn't say they're coding. This idea of a common language was the mainstay of the Proposition rebuttal.

Keenan, after charging that Cameron failed to produce a birth certificate, argued that code is a burden on designers, and the focus should be the principles of the web. Continuing Keenan's argument, Andy said that designers don't need to code to understand the principles. He stated their side is not opposed to designers learning, but that it's an issue of “must” and they are against homogeneity. Matias flipped the debate topic around, arguing that developers should know design, to unburden the designers.

Moderator Jeremy prompted another short discussion of Steve Jobs, asking if Jobs was a designer and what makes a designer (to major audience reaction).

Matias, using Mies van der Rohe as an example, emphasized the importance of naïveté and not knowing what's possible or not possible. He proclaimed that he respects developers more than they respect themselves, and that collaboration amongst expert craftspeople is the most effective.

Cameron again rejected the idea that learning is a burden, or otherwise interferes with creativity. Responding to Jeremy's question of “Does knowing how to code limit?”, he asked “How do you push the envelope if you don't know what it is?”. Speaking personally as a former print designer, Jon stated that learning to code deshackled him, and actually removed the constraints of print.

Andy, for the Opposition, agreed with the notion of appropriate tools, but argued that the right tool doesn't exist yet, and that mandating code isn't the answer.

A final round of floor speeches from the audience was opened up, with only one, offered by Dan. It was less of a speech for or against a particular side, but instead a challenge of the topic. He charged that the topic was incomplete: “All web designers must learn to code… to be ____? ”. The topic did not say to what end.

In closing statements for the Opposition, Keenan pointed out that Information Architecture has its own language and tools. He asked “Must designers also learn IA?”, and finished by stating there is an opportunity cost associated with learning to code. For the Proposition, Cameron rejected the idea of pigeonholing people into designers or developers. Also, “America!”.

A concluding vote was taken, with the Opposition winning over the Proposition by 31 to 23, a decisive switch over the opening sentiment. Jeremy noted that the debaters were assigned somewhat randomly and not arguing their own opinions; Keenan followed by saying that he actually saw learning to code as a professional advantage.

The crux of the issue was that word "must". There was even an audience member “just cheering for semantics”. It was a common thread in post debate conversations, and perhaps highlighted a failing in the topic. However, had the topic been more moderate, using a word like “should”, the debate would not have been so spirited or entertaining. It also would not have provoked as interesting and useful a discussion.

Going back to semantics and the definitions, design is really a problem solving process. What really matters is the question: “does this being made solve the user's problems?”. There is a balance between working within, and innovating against, the constraints offered by the medium, and the unbridled discovery from not knowing what is not possible. Both sides have to understand the value that each brings to the experience of the user. As one audience member said at the end, what matters is designers have to love developers, and developers have to love designers. Here, here!