dug // 27 September 2012

Saw this question on a forum and had to answer:

Is it acceptable to create a portfolio that you know won't work in some mainstream browsers?
If you were hiring a UX designer and the applicant specified a certain browser that you had to use to view their work, how would you react to that?

I would probably say “go work somewhere else” But that’s because I’m an ornery scumbag…

So the question is “is it acceptable” followed by “how would you react to that”. This is tricky, because in many ways the two questions are very different…

Is it acceptable?

Yeah, sure. Imagine a candidate wants to show how she has thought through a gestural interface or wants to wow me with some smooth transition effect. If that’s what she’s into and that’s where she shines then sure, go for it. If I’m in the market for that talent then we’re aligned and we’re off to a good start:-)

How would you react?

Taken on its own, this question puts me in a different place. The internet is mankind’s greatest invention (ok, except maybe apart from internally pressurised ale) and if a candidate wants to communicate with me using an online experience then why not flow with the medium? This is a multichannel, multi-platform world where–never mind old browsers–we haven’t got a clue what awesome browsing technology will arrive tomorrow.

The point of the browser-based internet was that it could give us the experience of universal access to human knowledge. The point of standards compliance is that the medium of consumption need not limit the medium of creation.

In other words, use your fucking imagination and amaze me. I’m compatible with humanity and I want my site to be usable on a screen made out of bananas glued to a wall made of kryptonite.

I want to feel your energy and your soul and your mind and then I’ll give you a job. At least in my case, if you reach out to me and pull back because you don’t like the way I choose to merge with the internet then the best you’ll get out of me is a yawn.