7

If we are to re-brand as design.stackexchange (See here, here, here and here) we need to define what a design stack would be about. Jeff Atwood just said this:

I like the idea of broading the scope to 'design' so long as we have a good list of valid topics that we consider to be 'design' and people encountering the community would not be confused by this

After all, as someone pointed out on Area51 it can't just be everything with design in its name. So with that in mind, have an attempt at defining design as it should apply to a theoretical design.stackexchange. Vote on the best answer and we should had a good understanding from which we can build on-topic/off-topic questions from.

8
  • I was actually going to edit my question to include a list, but I'll add it here as well.
    – Philip Regan
    Feb 11, 2011 at 14:06
  • design is a word that is incredibly broad and wouldn't be terribly useful as a segmented site.
    – DA01
    Feb 14, 2011 at 20:01
  • @DA01, what would you suggest?
    – Hemi
    Feb 18, 2011 at 20:44
  • Graphic design is relatively specific. 'design' is not. I'm not sure what the goals of the site are. If it's to remain relatively specific (which is what I thought all the fragmented stackexchange sites were for) then I'd say leave it as is.
    – DA01
    Feb 19, 2011 at 17:26
  • design is relatively specific if its relative to, say, "life, the universe and everything". So i don't think that is the goal. The goal of the beta, as i interpret, is to build a critical mass community to fuel self sustaining growth. One of the components of building the critical mass is sizing the scope right. There have been a number of discussions around 'what the right size scope is'. See the linked questions to the right
    – Hemi
    Feb 20, 2011 at 1:01
  • I agree that design is a bit broad. What about "mediadesign" or "visualdesign" (not the best suggestions, I know) or something that helps relate the "design" aspect more towards specific types of design. But I'm all for broadening the scope, I think that's important.
    – Hanna
    Mar 4, 2011 at 19:33
  • I don't think there should be a design.stackexchange.com unless you want it to target many different industries.
    – Lucifer
    Mar 16, 2011 at 12:16
  • @Lucifer, that is the point. see meta.graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/86/… and meta.graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/96/…
    – Hemi
    Mar 16, 2011 at 20:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9

The overall theme I think we should embrace would be to focus on the motif—style, decoration, theme, aesthetic—of a project regardless of medium in the following manner (the lists are examples and not all-inclusive):

Focus on 2D design

  • Graphic arts - logo design, fonts & typography, visual communication, etc.
  • Web design - CSS-centric/HTML-inclusive
  • UI/UX Design
  • Typography and typesetting
  • Layout and printing
  • Branding and marketing
  • photographic design
  • illustration
  • Comics
  • Digital media - (i.e., Flash, Video)
  • Technical questions (How-To) related to design applications, or at least those applications that have the broadest audience, like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign.

Allow 3D design (and leave it to a question of what will gain traction)

  • fashion design
  • industrial design
  • Spacial (Interior/Exterior) Design
  • Sculpture

Disallow the following (knowing that some of this might be self-contradictory)

  • Technical questions related to 3D software
  • Technical suestions related to Video editing software
  • Web site architecture and development (i.e., pure HTML/no CSS, questions related to the back end)
  • Landscaping and Architecture (though this may contradict allowing interior and exterior design)

That being said, oftentimes we can't apply a design or aesthetic to a project without knowing the technical steps to get there, so there is some wiggle room here.

5
  • oops i got a bit hasty
    – Hemi
    Feb 12, 2011 at 0:34
  • I think we need to be a bit careful with Branding and Marketing. That's a very broad subject, that doesn't all have a lot to do with graphic design. I think it's obvious what areas of branding and marketing would fall into this site without including it in the list, so...
    – PearsonArtPhoto
    Feb 20, 2011 at 14:25
  • 1
    "So..." what? And? I don't understand the point you are trying to reach here. The list I have proposed is an amalgamation of the various threads that have existed here and elsewhere. All of these are broad topics, and some of them I don't agree with either but they have been included because of other people's requests. At the same time, branding and the creation of good marketing pieces are just as much a graphic design issue as anything else on that list, if not more so than many of them. I would rather include those topics and let them die on the vine than exclude them and possibly miss out.
    – Philip Regan
    Feb 20, 2011 at 15:08
  • There are many topics of marketing and branding that have absolutely nothing to do with graphic design. I'm picturing things like "How can I make a catchy song to market my product", "How can I get my brand well known in the world".
    – PearsonArtPhoto
    Feb 24, 2011 at 1:36
  • 2
    The first one is clearly off-topic and would get closed—the scope I outlined clearly states *focus on 2D design*—and the second one does straddle the line between on- and off-topic, but it is also very subjective and broad so I doubt it would get an answer, if not closed by the community anyway. If you want we can add in to the scope above that those types of questions are specifically off-topic.
    – Philip Regan
    Feb 24, 2011 at 10:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .