[folletto]

That point is underlying the whole article. ;)

What it tries to clarify - and well, it might have failed, of course - is that we should stop to simplify the problem as "designers should code", because not all designers should. But yes, all designers could, and if you feel that way, or you are prepared for that, or if you want that, you can learn to code. Exactly like a developer can learn how to design.

In either case, exactly like it's wrong to say "developers should design" but it's correct to argue that a developer with design knowledge will be better at its job, it's equally wrong to say that "designers should code", but it's correct to argue that a web designer with developer knowledge will be better at its job. ;)

[tel]

I think the difference is that the author defines "designer" as someone who excels in some "designer-like" quadrant of the intelligences. Which is a load of self-entitled bs.

A designer is someone who designs—it's defined by action, not beliefs about competency. If you design things implemented in HTML/CSS and you don't have any proficiency at all in those technologies then you're very liable to be a worse designer than someone who does. The argument of how often that is true is what's important here and it's never actually discussed in the article.

[folletto]

However, you can design things implemented in HTML/CSS without actually knowing anything about HTML/CSS. ;)