Based on this question. Thought it would be best to create a new one, as the other is a bit overflown with information.

From the latest comments, some of us are thinking "Art & Design" might be a better option than Graphic Design. It's more inclusive, and it allows for a broadening of the scope, which could mean more visitors, more questions and hopefully our final graduation from Beta.

  • Please answer for yes or no, and (if you want) give a short explanation for your choice.


  • Would you consider either of these a better option?:
  • "Graphic Art & Design"

  • "Graphic Design and Art"  

  • "Graphic Art"
  • 1
    So that's one answer per vote / reason? Good to see everyone's reasons. – user56reinstatemonica8 Mar 1 '13 at 10:46
  • 1
    So, any info on who set this as "status-declined" and why? – e100 Apr 25 '13 at 23:28
  • @e100 Just check Aarthi's answer below! – Yisela Apr 25 '13 at 23:45
  • 2
    From reading all the answers and comments, it seems nearly all objections are to removing the concept of "graphic/2d" from the title, hence opening the site up to non-graphic art (e.g. sculpture), or non-graphic design (e.g. industrial), so a name change to anything that implies "graphic art" and "graphic design" would work. The only other objections are @Aarthi's second point (name change != scope change, but see meta.graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/86) and Ryan's (which is probably better off as a separate question?). The Status-Declined seems pretty un-democratic. – naught101 Jul 12 '13 at 3:14
  • Also, there are already a number of "graphic art" questions, and even some tags that are clearly art related, rather than GD related. See for example: graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/…, graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/…, graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/drawing. – naught101 Jul 12 '13 at 3:46
  • @naught101 Indeed, (graphic) art questions are not considered off-topic. This will probably change if there is a 2D beta in the future. I think there was an initial misunderstanding, because the proposal was not to rename the site to "Art", or "Design", but something a bit broader. – Yisela Jul 12 '13 at 4:04
  • Many answers say yes, why is this status-declined? – Ooker Mar 13 '18 at 4:40
  • @Ooker See Aarthi's reply. – Yisela Mar 14 '18 at 5:43


I think it's much more descriptive. There's so much more to design than simply pushing software around. "graphic design" often equates to page layout to me. Graphic Arts is used for printing techniques. Simply making it Art & Design allows for all types of design - environmental, textile, industrial. And "Art" allows for other skills used in design such as sketching, drawing, painting.

  • Graphic Art & Design. This is okay but not great. I see this as perhaps implying that it's art as related to design. But be aware "Graphic art" traditionally refers to press procedures - stripping, camera work, platemaking, etc. So there's room for some real confusion. How do we then handle questions like, "My imagesetter is failing to render a plate correctly" Or "How do I adjust this art so I can silk screen it on a Tshirt?"

  • Graphic Design & Art This is good. I'd find this greatly acceptable. It defines the scope well without much room for interpretation. It would imply questions about industrial, textile, environmental design are off-topic. While at the same time broadening the scope to include questions regarding traditional media rather than merely software questions.

  • Graphic Art To me, unacceptable. See Graphic Art & Design above. This could simply be a cultural issue, but people in the U.S. take college courses under the hood of "Graphic Art" and learn to run a press and make plates. I don't think that's what the scope of the site is.



The obvious unfortunate outcome of naming this site "Graphic Design" is that most questions can be categorized under 'Creative Suite help-desk'. While I enjoy some of those questions and often learn new things from them, the repetition gets stale quickly.

I would look forward to the increased scope that comes with renaming this site to "Art & Design"


I think "Graphic Design and Art" would probably be best

  • 2
    +1 regarding 'Creative Suite help-desk' questions. I'm more than happy to answer such questions and I have learnt a few things from those questions too, but I would love to see more arty and creative questions appear, perhaps something that a name change might aid in encouraging. – Adam Elsodaney Mar 3 '13 at 23:57


Although my vote actually goes to Graphic Design & Art. I wouldn't object to Art & Design, but "Graphic Design" is something very specific which the general Design isn't. Design could cover interior design, industrial design, and clothing. Scott makes the best case.



Because the most interesting innovations cone from the fringes and spaces between disciplines, before getting mainstream acceptance.

When the next big thing starts to emerge, I'd want us to be on the front line helping it develop - not reaching for the "close as off topic" button because it's only just starting to be part of graphic design.

...and yes to Graphic Design & Art as an improvement because it's fine for the above issue, and seems a better match for our focus: a broad permissive circle with the graphic design and artworking professions at the centre (rather than being centred around, say, watercolour landscapes, ceramics and expensive molded plastic chairs).

  • The name of the site doesn't define the scope. I, for, instance, thought that typogrpahy is not in the scope of this site, but I was proved wrong. – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 18:44

We talked this over pretty thoroughly internally, and we feel there are a couple important things to point out here:

  1. We feel the addition of "& Art" is misleading. This site, for all its strengths, is not and never was meant to be about sculpture, crochet, or tile mosaics. Is it about elements that relate to those fields? Absolutely -- color choice, materials contrast and complements, and even arrangement would (theoretically) fit in on this site, as long as we were talking about the visual aspect of design work in the question's context. However, sculpture technique, kiln temperature regulation, and yarn gauge comparisons don't have a real place here, but having “Art” in the title would lead to people asking those kinds of questions on your site.
  2. The problem you're trying to solve -- making this site not about just the software side of design work -- isn't going to be instantly solved by a name change. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you: it sucks, but changing how people (especially drive-by people) use this site takes work and effort and time. You've had a phenomenal year, with amazing growth and expansion in that time. Take advantage of it! Build on the scope expansion project yourselves, ask the types of questions you want to see on here. Do you want more questions about graphic novel page layouts? Ask them yourself, especially if you already know the answer.

Look, I pay close attention to this site, and I am very sympathetic with what you’re all struggling with here. However, trust me: changing your site's name is treating a symptom, not the cause of that frustration.

I know you all feel strongly about this, so I would like to propose an alternative: instead of adding words to your site title, remove the word "graphic” from your site name. There's a possibility you're going to get some questions from the esoteric ends of the design spectrum (interior design! furniture design! fashion design! manicure color layout! papercraft!) but you're also going to get some of the other things you do want to see (textiles design, page layout, font design/typography, color theory, etc) as well. If this is something you all consider worth pursuing, start a new meta post and make your arguments and position(s) just as clear as you did here.

Either way, I urge you all to redirect your efforts from picking a name to, instead, asking and answering the kinds of questions you want to see more of on the site.

I have full confidence in this community to rally together and continue to push and expand this site beyond "Adobe Q&A". You've done it before, and you can do it again.

  • 1
    Thanks for your response Aarthi. Just one note though: The one that most of us thought was the best option was "Graphic Design & Art" as in "Graphic Design" and "Graphic Art" not as in two separate entities, "Graphic Design", "Art". I understand and of course respect SE's position, the content is what needs to be on focus. – Yisela Apr 2 '13 at 21:48
  • I'm coming from discussion at discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/6142/…. I definitely disagree with changing the title to "Design". Industrial design, software design, building design, etc. are way out of scope. Layout, typography and colour theory are, to my mind, clearly already part of graphic design (some of the top questions are related to these). Sketching, painting, comics etc. are not. That's where the "graphic arts" part comes in. – naught101 Jul 12 '13 at 2:41


Basically everything has been said in the previous topics and posts, so im just casting my vote. Im for both Art & Design and the Graphic Design & Art options.

Im hoping a name change would help draw new experts to the site, who could help by asking and answering the type of quesstions ive been asking lately



'Art & Design' is a very broad description of what we all do, but I think it's too broad by far.

'Art' conveys a notion of classical art; at least to me. It includes classical painting, music, writing, theatre, rhetoric etc., things I guess we don't really want to discuss on this SE.

'Design' comes much closer. Lauren Ipsum neatly summarizes my problems with the term.

My vote goes to 'Graphic Design & Art', as per Scott's arguments. It's quite clear that an SE with this name does not involve the classical arts as I named them above.



"Art" is very wide notion covering things that are not in the scope of this SE site. And if they are, then the scope of the project is too wide for the site to work well. Art contains pottery, sculptures, architecture, furniture design, fashion design etc. As well, the name Art & Design sounds completely unrelated to graphical software, which creates vast majority of the site traffic.

  • I sorta like Graphic Arts, because it still is primarily "Graphic", and the "Arts" part is clearly "only Graphic". I would not be afraid of people not willing to ask tech PC questions because of the name: there's already a good base of such questions to make it clear that they are on-topic. – yo' Mar 1 '13 at 23:42
  • 1
    Edited the question to add some alternatives: "Graphic Arts & Design", "Graphic Design and Art" and "Graphic Art" (yuor suggestion). All of them would limit the scope. – Yisela Mar 1 '13 at 23:47
  • The scope is not that strictly given by the name. It is the contents that gives the scope (remember that most people find such sites through search engines). IMHO using Photoshop is "graphic arts" as well as "martial arts" are "arts" while they are (moreorless, roughly said) fighting techniques, so this title is not really bad. Graphic & Arts is, on the other hand, too wide IMHO and you'll have people asking "why is my pottery question off-topic". – yo' Mar 2 '13 at 17:31
  • The scope is not given by the name, but it's closely related. And although probably most people come from search engines, lots of others come from stackexchange sites (an example here), and for those the name is priority. – Yisela Mar 2 '13 at 21:30
  • @yisela I'd be happy to discuss it a bit more in the chat, if you had some spare time now ;) – yo' Mar 2 '13 at 21:33

I would rather leave the site as is or rename it to something that includes the word Communications in it such as Visual Communications, Graphic Arts & Communications, Graphic Communications, Graphic Design & Visual Communications or something similar.

I feel the big distinction between us and Artists is that our #1 purpose is to effectively communicate and use images in addition to text in order to do so.

I agree that it would be nice to be on the forefront of such topics by not closing them too hastily for not being "2D graphic design issues" which is why I think something like "Visual Communications" continues with the purpose of our field while opening it up to all tools used to achieve that goal.

  • 1
    Not sure if this is similar in other countries, but back home "Communication" meant journalism. Could be very regional though... – Yisela Mar 12 '13 at 19:31
  • Also see the first paragraph of Graphic Design: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_design – Ryan Mar 12 '13 at 19:50
  • I understand the idea behind it, it's the association that I was wondering about. "Communication" per se doesn't refer to graphic design, "Visual Communication" does, but it's not something I'd use for searching. I really like the concept, it's the visibility that worries me. – Yisela Mar 12 '13 at 19:54
  • 1
    I agree with Yisela. While Visual Communication is pleasing to those in the industry it's not something a new user would be using Google to search for. In addition, Visual Communication can encompass sign language, body language, interpretive dance, performance art..... In reality "Visual Communication" is a broader scope than anything else suggested. – Scott Mar 12 '13 at 23:19
  • I greatly disagree with your statement that visual communication is more broad than the term art. And as far as new people are concerned - that seems completely irrelevant - its the content that counts which is why I'm just as happy leaving it be. How does StackExchange at all relate to computers or Superuser for that matter? Unless you know root you would never be searching google for 'Superuser' – Ryan Mar 13 '13 at 15:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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