The argument stated is that intelligence is multidimensional (stated as fact with caricature testimony) and therefore there exists a job aligned with one of those dimensions. Arguing that designers should code states that today optimal design is done by someone who has skill on multiple axes.
So the article really just dodges the issue by defining situations alternative to arguments made by Frank Chimero[1] makes and then pretending like that's a rebuttal.
He, of course, steps away from this ridiculous position toward the end by agreeing that designers could learn to code. Even suggesting it might not be a terrible idea, but this again misses the brunt of the pro argument:
Designers with strong understanding of implementation are better than those without.
I don't really want to argue that point in this comment—I'm not qualified. I just wanted to state that he never actually says anything concerning it.
What it tries to clarify - and well, it might have failed, of course - is that we should stop to simplify the problem as "designers should code", because not all designers should. But yes, all designers could, and if you feel that way, or you are prepared for that, or if you want that, you can learn to code. Exactly like a developer can learn how to design.
In either case, exactly like it's wrong to say "developers should design" but it's correct to argue that a developer with design knowledge will be better at its job, it's equally wrong to say that "designers should code", but it's correct to argue that a web designer with developer knowledge will be better at its job. ;)
I think the difference is that the author defines "designer" as someone who excels in some "designer-like" quadrant of the intelligences. Which is a load of self-entitled bs.
A designer is someone who designs—it's defined by action, not beliefs about competency. If you design things implemented in HTML/CSS and you don't have any proficiency at all in those technologies then you're very liable to be a worse designer than someone who does. The argument of how often that is true is what's important here and it's never actually discussed in the article.
The argument stated is that intelligence is multidimensional (stated as fact with caricature testimony) and therefore there exists a job aligned with one of those dimensions. Arguing that designers should code states that today optimal design is done by someone who has skill on multiple axes.
So the article really just dodges the issue by defining situations alternative to arguments made by Frank Chimero[1] makes and then pretending like that's a rebuttal.
He, of course, steps away from this ridiculous position toward the end by agreeing that designers could learn to code. Even suggesting it might not be a terrible idea, but this again misses the brunt of the pro argument:
Designers with strong understanding of implementation are better than those without.
I don't really want to argue that point in this comment—I'm not qualified. I just wanted to state that he never actually says anything concerning it.
[1]http://blog.frankchimero.com/post/9594863189