[hallomisky]

> 99designs output is literally just an image of what they think your website should look like. Actually writing all of the HTML and CSS to make it actually look like that is up to you. It makes me think, why am I paying money for a picture of what my site could look like that requires me to do all of the actual work?

This implies that design is not work. Strange, on a tech website, to encounter someone who doesn't realize that design and implementation are two separate jobs.

[Tabular-Iceberg]

It's not so much that designing isn't work. Arguably it's much harder work than writing HTML and CSS.

The problem is that a lot of that work is wasted when all you produce is an example image. A lot of important design decisions, like tracking and leading, doesn't show well in a PNG. I'm not saying all designers should know and deliver their designs in HTML and CSS. In fact it's probably better if they don't and instead focus on designing. But I do expect them to effectively communicating their design decisions in a way that makes them implementable in HTML and CSS by reasonable people.

Chucking a PNG over the fence and calling it a day is just lazy and unprofessional.

[lolinder]

Agreed on PNGs, but the original poster that the parent was replying to was even complaining about designers who give them HTML and CSS, because the HTML/CSS is auto-generated and isn't production-ready. They expected to hire a frontend developer who is also a good designer. The parent's point is that this is unreasonable: they're separate jobs and completely separate skillsets. (Not that such people don't exist, it's just not the norm.)

[hallomisky]

Yes, that makes sense. A design delivered in e.g. figma format, which allows you to see measurements, colours, etc., would be the preferred outcome.