You completely missed my comment, saying the opposite of what I in fact said in several places. I work with lots of people, generally speaking, 5-15 short contracts a year doing drop in consulting on iPhone/Embedded Linux Devices, including products under failure/needing rescue.

While not to the point my number has a small error rate, I assure you people I am describing exist a number of places, completely unrelated to my short stay with them. They're pretty well disliked by the internal engineers at their job too, but management doesn't always listen as closely to the internal employees as to to me. Your psychoanalysis is wrong. I know good ones too! And I've had this conversation telling them why an engineer will think they're so damn good.

My issue is only with the fakers.

>It is arrogant to say that all or most of these designers only think in terms of "art".

I never said they only think in terms of art. Most seem (when trained) to be trained in either web design specifically, or graphic design, specifically print based graphical design.

Lots of them do think in terms of more than art. However these fakers are terrified of discourse about their work, unwilling to defend why it is better than lower cost alternatives, and often terrified/huge foes of quantification of their work. My issue is lots of them regurgitate cargo cult design from smashing magazine, etc, without ever measuring their work and objecting furiously when other start to put tools in place to do so.

>Lastly, you mentioned how the effectiveness of design is not quantifiable which leads me to believe you diminish the importance design for this reason

My issue is with those who refuse to accept the use of quantification of the design. It is very quantifiable. That is my only issue. I know how to do absurdly useful verification techniques to quantify a design. Many UI Designers get threatened no matter how carefully you tiptoe that into the project plan. The insistance that many of these folk require that you follow their ideas because humans are ineffable even though we can actually time how much better or worse their tiny button works is my frustration and pain until I have this conversation with the person who they've already sold their idea to. I'm talking abou the person who's trying to actively avoid developing their own understanding of a 44px button doing better than a 22px button from the statistics we deliver you on how many people miss with that small button you have there, as shown to you with a 100 person beta test trying to do a couple things.

I mean, these same people are the ones who bemoan trying two different packages in a direct mail print campaign. They wouldn't do better in print design either.

They should both know at least some of these better or at least on a comparable level to me, or at the very least, be eager for data showing them right or wrong, how well their job was performed.

I'm sure there are a few good guys out there with a non-college training regimen who don't come from a graphic design background in this stuff, because as you mentioned, it's a young field. But I'm tired of people claiming authority on crap and not backing it up. I'm tired of them resisting putting measurement in place when all we require is "we're seeing a lot of errors doing X, please look for a way that has a lower error rate".

This isn't an invective against all people who call themselves UI Designers. It pointing out that term is over broad and you're associating yourself with a bunch of fakes by calling yourself that. They're often unwilling to engage in productive discussion with the rest of the product team, and who often recoil from objective measurement of their work.

If it makes you feel better: Programmers who apply for jobs have a seeming 90-95% "can't program at all" rate in my experience. I mean, dirt simple stuff. UI Designers have a smaller fraud rate than them :D. And I'm pretty sure programmers have taken "being full of BS" to heretofore unseen levels. But enough about my field, lets talk more about yours :P