I’ve been a bit bothered recently by something: people calling themselves web designers when all they do is create designs for weblogs. Not that the particular process of creating a design for a weblog isn’t designing — I don’t argue that it is design. But people who have never created a site for a corporation, or a product, or anything outside of the realm of blogs just don’t seem like real designers to me. It’s kind of like the whole late 90’s thing where anyone with notepad and an ftp client somehow became a “web designer”. Or anyone without a job after the tech boom became a “consultant.”

All of this then over-saturates the market. Not only do I question their design concepts and portfolio, but I ask if they are legitimate or not. Legitimate being a certain set of rules which may or may not be flexible, but in the end allow me to make a snap decision on the person I’m looking at because I can’t stand wasting my time on a fake.

I think there’s something inherently wrong with a snap decision based on that criteria. Blogs are important and invaluable in today’s web world. They’re the popular newcomer. Both hip and cool. I understand all this yet can’t wrap my head beyond it. It simply comes down to a, “They only design blogs. Next.”

And maybe that’s OK for corporate sites and similar situations where you don’t see what you need conceptualized in their portfolio. But maybe not. Some of these people have great designs, just nothing beyond the weblog medium. Being progressive is a good thing. I absolutely want a progressive designer to design for me.

I can’t be the only person out there that does this. The real question is, is it bad practice? Or is it the designers fault for not having a more well-rounded portfolio?