Some design work decorates a screen. Some solves the problem the screen exists for, and the visuals follow from that.
I came to code through graphic design, and these days I'm usually the engineer turning someone's design into a working product. From that seat the difference shows up fast. One kind of file answers my questions before I ask them. The other looks great until the first empty state, error message or slow network.
One question
If I could ask a designer only one thing, it would be this:
"Walk me through how you would redesign the checkout flow for a grocery delivery app, knowing that 60% of users abandon their cart before completing the purchase."
Strong answers start with questions:
- "Where exactly are people dropping off?"
- "What devices are they on?"
- "Have we asked users why they leave?"
- "What are the business constraints?"
Weaker answers go straight to visuals:
- "I'd make it cleaner and more modern"
- "Maybe a different color scheme"
- "Add some nice animations"
The first list is where the checkout gets fixed. The second is where it gets repainted.
What I look for in the work
The problem, stated plainly. The directions they threw away, and why one approach beat the others. What happened after it shipped.
And how they talk about developers, as partners or as obstacles. I've sat on both sides of that handoff, and partners ship better products.
Taste follows trends. Problem solving lasts. You can refine someone's eye, but the instinct for the problem is much harder to teach.
A beautiful interface that doesn't help anyone get the job done is a poster.