<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by David Glaze</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/4020</link>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:06:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by David Glaze</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;As someone who&amp;#8217;s been managing designers for about 20 years, I can say &amp;#8220;I half agree&amp;#8221;. While it&amp;#8217;s true that success for a young designer typically does include on the kinds of skills described in this article, it would be a mistake to undervalue talent in the mix. A junior designer who is organized, productive, detail-oriented, positive and communicative but not a particularly talented designer is often destined to find his or her career path shifting towards Production, running a studio, or becoming a Creative Services manager. All noble callings to be sure, and invaluable to the success of any design firm, but not necessarily the designer&amp;#8217;s original goal.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I find points 1 (Work quickly. Produce a lot.) and 3 (Be versatile.) to be particularly problematic in this regard. These are great traits, to be sure, but pointless if the output is not good. Quickly produced reams of mediocre, off-target or un-executable work is far less valuable than a few well-conceived concepts. Ditto for versatility&amp;#8230;being able to do mediocre work in different styles is a questionable skill at best.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/talent-isn-t#content_6058</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/talent-isn-t#content_6058</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:06:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>David Glaze</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

