A useful way to think of graphic designers is as advocates. I propose this description as a framework to help understand some of the activities and responsibilities of designers. The notion of mediator is a similar and sometimes valid descriptor, but a mediator is primarily concerned with resolving conflict, which may indeed be the case within the design process, but a mediators function begins and ends with resolving an impasse. Advocate, on the other hand denotes a vested interest in what is best for an another without a predetermined goal. As I see it graphic designers have primarily three parties for which they must advocate. In conjunction with creating form, representing and negotiating competing interests is at the core of the design process.
In conjunction with creating form, representing and negotiating competing interests is at the core of the design process.
The first and most obvious party is the client. A graphic designer is hired by a client to look out for and advance their agenda, an easy fit for the word advocate. The client has a problem that needs solving and the designer develops a solution, whilst safeguarding their best interests, including interests that may extend beyond the immediate area of focus. The graphic designer applies all of her talent and experience to advocate for the client.
Graphic design as a practice is also a stakeholder in the process. Designers must advocate for the work and by extension themselves and their profession. They have a responsibility to produce work that is well researched, original and that meets the ethical standards of the profession, work that solves the client’s problem and maintains value over time. Advocating for the work also includes speaking up when the client’s requests compromise these values or undermine other stakeholders.
A final, more recent notion is that designers are also advocates for the audience and the communities who are stakeholders in the design artifacts. As important, if not more so than the client’s needs, are those of the audience. If the designer does not advocate for the audience, who does? How can a solution be successful if the needs of the audience are not recognized? The kinds of advocacy I am referring to may include enabling active participation, incorporating a specific vernacular or understanding a communities conventions. The designer can act as a gatekeeper that ensures the audience is treated in a fair and ethical manner. The designer acts as proxy for the audience in transactions with the client.
This system of advocacy is not always equitable, and everyone’s needs are not always met, but the designer is in a unique position to ensure all the stakeholders are at least heard. Despite my postulating, this is the real world and the client is the final arbiter. Defying clients is not a practical business plan, but I am suggesting that deferring without question or interjection can be unethical and unprofessional. A graphic designer’s job is not solely to create solutions that the client likes, it is to make solutions that work for everyone involved; that solve the problem. (Crowdsourced graphic design is an entire business model built around the fallacy that liking something is equal to it being good.) Ideally a client will be pleased, but pragmatically their taste is not a determining factor in whether the design is appropriate and solves the problem. The client’s preferences should be integrated whenever possible, but should not be the engine that drives the process. Advocating for the audience and the work is always in the client’s best interest and part of the job is helping see that truth, Graphic designers are self styled problem solvers, part of problem solving is balancing disparate needs, to speak up, to advocate.