Talk:Interior design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Definition too narrow

The distinction in this article between interior design and 'interior decoration' is one relevant to the US but not common elsewhere. A British or European reader would be confused to read that there is a difference. Nor is qualification a necessity in most of the world. The distinction should be removed for the purposes of this encyclopedia but the unusual US situation referred to in a subsection. 82.109.17.170

[edit] Not an education problem:

Following the example of the Architecture article, I have created a separate article for Interior Design Education and moved all of the specific program information there. This will keep the interior design page from becoming a marketing vehicle for multiple programs. K8tey 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)k8tey

I too think this definition of decor is very narrow. Decor is so much more than decoration or interior design. It is a set of attitudes and histories.

[edit] Headline text

''''Olvia to Oliv''''ia State University, as UW does not even have a Baccaulareate program. Most of the information for Master's degrees in the United States is incorrect and needs to be fleshed out, but I do not want to continually revert it until the end of the quarter when I have the opportunity to write something more appropriate and correctly cited. The way the information about Interior Architecture in the United States is presented is inadequate to explain the depth of issues surrounding the semantics of the profession and its legal status in the US. This section also reads as if there are 5 or so INDS programs in the US, which is a gross understatement. I think it would be much more informative to discuss different degrees (AA, BS, BFA, MS, MFA, MA, MID, PHd, DD) instead of specific programs.

Marketing information for specific academic programs seems NPOV and impacts the article negatively (imagine if every school added marketing information for their program to the article!) It appears that the article has been reverted multiple times by someone from the Stuttgart program. I am not going to revert it back again, as I do not want to break the WP:3RR or get involved in back-and-forth editing.

BartaS, I see you have invited me to discuss this with you over email, but I do not have your email, and this is better discussed here. I think you could be a fantastic source of information on European ID education for this article if a NPOV is taken, and specific programs are not marketed. K8tey 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

K8tey, I fully agree with you on the above and I'm glad you're interested in European ID education - I'd be pleased to write more. I considered my contribution here an introduction (perhaps to students researching ID), and would have welcomed editing by others to expand on the article; I was planning on adding more information as I had the time. I was a bit surprised at the blunt deletion of the information: a bit mundane, no? As to specific programmes, the HfT Stuttgart along with 4 other European unviersities and the European Union have created a unique Master's programme for designers bound the normal bounds of ID - and I think this deserves special mention, as it redefines the work of an ID to meet today's economic demands. I admit, it tends to stick out a bit, but I think this is more due to the fact that there is not enough information about other education possibilities than to the "marketing". --BartaS 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem

As pointed out on WP:CP, this article seems to have contained a significant amount of text copied from http://ncidq.org/definition.htm since August 2004, and is thus an apparent copyright violation. I have reverted the page to the last "good" version for the time being; it doesn't leave much. I think the material merged in from Elements of interior design may be OK, as it cited two sources, but I'm not sure. --rbrwr± 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition problem:

The problem with this definition of Interior Design is that the focus is on 'decorating' rather than defining the term around 'design'. One can see from the FIDER & NCIDQ information that Designers do more than 'decorate'! This definition should be revised to reflect what Designer's actually do (verb & noun)and the above definition should be placed under the heading Interior Decoration. We must clarify the definition between the two rather than continue this misinterpretation!

--Definition problem has been solved but needs to be expanded on. I keep meaning to get to it. :)--User:k8teyok

[edit] External links in body of article

The external links in the new section, The profession, need to be moved to an external links section at the end of the article. WP articles are not supposed to have external links from the body of the article like they are in this section. -999 (Talk) 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

This section seems misplaced or rather misnamed. I had envisioned this section to contain information about the various decorating styles for interior design, such as Asian, Baroque, Mission, and so. I general information that I mentioned would better fit under the interior decorating topic, with a new topic (Interior Decorating Styles or Design Styles) created to show examples of various decorating styles. (--lwalt 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Unreadable Format

Was there a reason for changing the format of the content? The content, as viewed on the page, is now unreadable, as it now looks like a sea of gray. Don't forget that some of us who have low vision or are partially blind have to also read content on the Wiki. In its present format, it's easy to lose one's place on this page. Also, remember that people need to know what you're talking about when you use acronyms, all of which I had spelled out in my revision of the article. That effort has been undone, not to mention placing links that launch from the body of the content instead of accessing the references at footnotes, which I also had taken care of in the revision. OK, I can agree to disagree about the substance of the content, but it's another thing to make the page unreadable. And this comment comes from a partially blind professional writer and graphic artist. So, if this format is supposedly cleaned up, I wonder what messed up looks like. Does it look like this??? If you're going to clean up, you need to do it right with professional taste. lwalt 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP -- Another editor reverted article to its previous version to remove copyright violations. lwalt 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LWALT - As of the 17th, when you left this message, I had cleaned up the article to get rid of the boxes of grey -which were created by a vandal- I have no idea why you saw them. I reverted the definition to it's correct wording (NOT a copyright violation!) because as a Professor of Interior Design I feel it is imperative that the wording that has been decided by ALL 5 interior design associations and is being used for legal purposes is used. As an Interior Design educator with a long professional history of graphic design and user-centered design I would never intentionally create a difficult to use article and I resent your implication of that ("professional taste...") Your other edits were fantastic and I tried to keep them intact. If I made a mistake in that endeavor, I do apologize. Please do not change the wording of the definition again. Thank you. 69.252.248.150 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) K8tey K8tey 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TO K8TEY -- Your comment is farfetched. I commented on the FORMAT only -- the professional presentation of the content. I was referring specifically to format changes occurring in some or all of these versions: (1) 13:32, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (cleanup), (2) 13:30, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (Clean up), (3) 13:28, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 and (4) 13:27, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (Huge chunck of official definition missing. Fixed.).
To remind you, here's what I said in my original message of December 17 (message has been paraphrased for brevity): "'Was there a reason for changing the format of the content? (Emphasis mine.) The content, as viewed on the page, is now unreadable, as it now looks like a sea of gray.' *** 'OK, I can agree to disagree about the substance of the content, but it's another thing to make the page unreadable.' *** 'So, if this format (emphasis mine) is supposedly cleaned up, I wonder what messed up looks like. Does it look like this??? If you're going to clean up, you need to do it right with professional taste.'" (That is, referring again to the final presentation of the content's format.)
In my follow-up comment, I referred to the reversal made by another editor (16:31, 18 December 2006 Mwanner (Talk | contribs) (rv to version by User:Lwalt to avoid copyvio text)). Obviously, seems that you didn't check the history before your WILD accusation. Therefore, it's best to look first at the article history and carefully read the feedback here so that you don't accuse others of doing or not doing what you claim. Hopefully, this explains where I'm coming from and that this response closes the matter, since this issue has now been resolved by another editor. lwalt 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked my history carefully and was asking you to do the same. I have been involved with this article for over a year. The unreadable formatting you were referring to was created by a vandal, and cleaned up by me. You can see this very clearly if you look at the article's history. You refer to me making "WILD" accusations. Huh? I didn't accuse you of anything at all. I was defending myself against your accusation that my edits messed up the article and were of poor professional taste. All I was doing was cleaning up the grey boxes a vandal created. Look at the history!!! After your edits, someone vandalized the page. Here is the page with the vandalism, as I found it on the 16th: [[1]]. I made a string of edits and cleaned up the formatting to get rid of the vandal's mess. This is how I left it: [[2]]. I am so confused as to why you are reacting this way! Seriously, if you feel I have accused you of something, I don't believe I did any such thing and apologize for offending you. As far as the copyvio issue, you can read further on this talk page to see the resolution being undertaken. K8tey 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
And I have reverted it again to the non-copyright version. You may be convinced that it is not a copyright violation, but until I see something explicitly indicating that it is in the public domain or licenced under GFDL or the equivalent, I will remain convinced that it is a copyright violation. Please note that text does not have to bear a copyright notice to be copyrighted-- rather copyright happens automatically upon publication. Thus, for this text not to be a copyright violation, there would have to be an explicit statement releasing copyright or stating that a free distribution licence applied. Please do not restore this text without pointing out where copyright is waived.
Further, I feel quite certain that Wikipedia has no reason to worry about your legal issue-- it should be possible to satisfy any such concerns by reference to the text on the Association sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Follow up: Note message at the bottom of the NCIDQ page: "© 2006 National Council for Interior Design Qualification, Inc." QED -- Mwanner | Talk 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, ha ha, funny. Why the "clever" remark? I believe that copyright notice is a standard footer coded into the NCIDQ website and am contacting them for further explicit statement that the definition belongs in the public domain. I still stand by the fact that I did not vandalize the page as Lwalt seems to be claiming. As an expert in this subject matter, I will continue to edit this article. K8tey 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't consider that an especially clever remark, just an appropriate additional piece of evidence in the question of whether or not this is copyrighted material. And yes, I agree, it probably is just a standard footer. Nevertheless, it is a footer that they are going to have to deal with explicitly if we are going to be able to use the text directly. Meanwhile, it seems to me that your concern with the paraphrase could be covered by adding a disclaimer along the lines of "The preceding definition is a paraphrase of language developed jointly by NCIDQ, [etc.]. Please see [web link] for the precise definition." -- Mwanner | Talk 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that you have found a fantastic resolution to this issue until we get explicit direction otherwise. Thank you for your editing help. I wish I had known your original message was a boilerplate template so that I did not take it personally. I have addressed some of your other comments on my talk page, if you are interested. K8tey 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interior Design vs. Interior Decoration

A lot of the content here seems to be propaganda written by ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ and the colleges that offer degrees in Interior Design.

(I didn't write the sentence above)The claims under "Difference between interior design and interior decorating" are controversial at best. Only around twenty American states/territories have a Title Act restricting the use of the title "Interior Designer". Even fewer have a Practice Act extension that restricts the practice of activities related to interior design in addition to restricting title use. The claims cite sources from the pro-certification side. Pending and existing legislation (whether Title or Practice Acts) are being fought by various organizations, and the matter is not nearly so clear-cut. I plan on renaming this section to "Controversy" or something to that extent, and adding the opposing viewpoints. I will leave the original content more or less intact. Michael peng 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I redid the "Difference between interior design and interior decorating" as a description of interior design legislation in the United States. The alleged distinction between "interior designer" and "interior decorator" is much a matter of state legislation and individual opinion, and hardly accepted industry-wide as a legitimate division. Legislation proponents should feel free to add their viewpoints. I will be expanding this section over time.Michael peng 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in article

Parts of the article are becoming degraded in what appears to be a "war of words" on licensing requirements for interior design practice in the United States. I also have problems with what appears to be websites used for supporting a particular side of the issue. I've reviewed some of the links, and they appear borderline (read: questionable objectivity and reliability) given that the site is hosted by an advocacy group with an interest in one side in the issue. In response, a veiled attack was launched right in the prose of the article to imply what would be a fallacy about qualifications to support a view for a particular side. Information of this type ultimately places undue weight on the article. Are there not other third-party disinterested or neutral sources to lend better credence to what's said here?

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground to debate the merits of a contentious or controversial issue.

Therefore, I propose a rewrite of part of the article in a neutral, non-point of view manner without advocating or lobbying for outside organizations. I consider the practice of using the prose of the article to advocate or lobby on behalf of someone or organization for your side a conflict of interest at best. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Took a look at the article before I was to start editing, and I'd like to extend a thousand thanks to the editor who took the bold approach to "neutralize" the POV in this article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of bias and misinformation going on here. Very few states have interior design legislation. Most of these so called laws are nothting more than hybrid titles such as "certified", "registered" or "licensed". These titles are manipulated by the holders of them to create the impression that you need to have one of these titles BY LAW to PRACTICE interior design. Not the case. They are nothing more than state sanctioned favors bestowed upon a group of designers who have lobbyed their legislators to create these special titles.

Do your own research Lwalt. Don't rely on members of the interior design "CARTEL", ASID/IIDA/NCIDQ to feed you their propaganda.

Excuse me...But you've got the wrong person here. I'm well aware of some of the issues, even though I'm not in the industry and not an interior designer; I'm only a person who is interested in interior as an art. What I've seen here is advocacy in pushing for a view from a particular standpoint, and I expected more from the article than advocacy, lobbying or whatever from somebody's side. So, I have no idea of what you're referring to as to relying on members of a cartel. Rather, I had hoped that the article covered more of the history of interior design, interior design practice around the world, the various disciplines of interior design and so on. As for information about interior licensing in the U.S., the article would not hold a world view (this is the reason why I placed a global/US tag on the section) since we're only talking about one country in the world, and I know that interior design practices exist all over the world. I had to express my view that the article had descended into what appeared to be an advocacy from a specific side, and that alone would have placed undue weight on the article.
So, what are you referring to as to "cartel" and favoring a group of designers here? May be I'm missing something since, as I've mentioned, I'm only interested in interior design as an art, in which case legislation affecting the interior design practice does not have any bearing for me. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lwalt: The practice and DEFINITION of Interior Design has become highly politicized by the interior design "cartel" that consists of ASID, IIDA, NCIDQ and the colleges that offer degree programs in interior design. NCIDQ, which claims to be a testing organization actually writes model legislation that mandates the use of their test for activists to use who are trying to restrict the practice of interior design at the state level under the pretense that un-educated/un-licensed interior designers (their definition of education) pose a threat to public safety and welfare.

The concept that there is a difference between interior design and interior decoration is a poitical statement. The definitions of Interior Design in Wikipedia under "Interior Design as a Profession" are also political and were drafted by the Caretl as part of their campaign and obsession to pass laws restricting the practice of interior design.

Interior Design is an ART and does not require government regulation. I agree that Wikipedia should reflect a world view. Interior Design legislation seems to be a creation of the US & Canada as I have yet to find another country in the world that regulates the practice of interior design (including and especially Europe).

I suggest you read "Designing Cartels" by The Institute For Justice http://www.ij.org/publications/other/designing-cartels.html as well as the recent George Will editorial in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101789.html (JFRIDAY7) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfriday7 (talk • contribs) 16:51:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps I should make something clear involving this interior design article in particular and Wikipedia articles in general. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum to engage in political debates, edit wars or flame wars about the merits or feasibility of legal issues or impending legislation that affects a position of advocacy for one side or the other. Anyway, legislation is volatile, which could become stale based on changing conditions in the political climate. If anything, this same type of information (that is, legal practice of interior design, if applicable) from other jurisdictions around the world would put the legislation or even the legal practice of interior design in a global context that can be compared and contrasted all the same. That would be my suggestion to add knowledge and help improve the article, rather than provide a U.S.-only slant that places undue weight on the article about the issues that you've raised here. If you can contribute something along those lines about legal practice of interior design in other countries (both English speaking and non-English speaking) that helps in the global understanding of interior design, that would be much more appreciated, especially by readers of this online encyclopedia.
If no information exists (as you say) to discuss the global regulation of interior design, perhaps this aspect of the article does not belong here in the first place (anyway, legislation in the United States properly belongs in a sub-article). Information about the legislative or legal issues involving interior design practice detracts from the discussion of interior design as an art, especially since introduction of this information also brings with it a decidedly unbalanced point of of view for advocates or lobbyists who are merely interested in using this article as a forum to debate the merits for why something should or should not be the case. →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I only wrote the legislation section to replace the old "Interior Decoration vs. Interior Design", which was pretty bad in general. I've removed this section completely for now. I also added an earlier comment on the talk page to the opening paragraph. Michael peng 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lwalt, if you take a look at Interior Decoration, I think merging this page with it would accomplish a lot of what you want. It would also smooth over the whole legislation definition controversy away from Wikipedia.Michael peng 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK...I've placed merge tags on this article and the one for Interior decoration to combine the content. That would go a ways towards placing overlapping information in one place. For "Regulation of interior design practice in the United States and Canada" (if this is unique to these two countries, since it was alleged that no other country does this), I still say that this discussion belongs in a sub-article that's linked from here (only a summary would appear in this article).
However, if this sub-article is created to cover the controversies surrounding licensing and regulation of interior design in the United States and Canada, the article must be written in a neutral or balanced tone to present the issues from a beneficial and contrary basis as they relate to public policy (that is, how this issue helps and hurts the consuming public and commercial practice that do or don't occur in other countries around the world (remember, the global view)). I'm recommending this approach so that someone won't come along and propose deletion of the article, or worst yet, mark the article for speedy deletion because that person perceives the article to be nothing more than than a advocating for a point of view. This discussion has already been broached here a while back (conversation somewhere on this talk page if the conversation hasn't been archived) when someone copied text into this article from one of the interior design association sites (a copyright violation, by the way) to purportedly "correct" the definition of interior design to distinguish this term from interior decoration. That discussion also belongs in the sub-article to discuss the issue of distinguishing the two terms to control or liberate the practice of interior design. →Lwalt ♦ talk 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It will be difficult to do this, since the subject is so heated between the Institute of Justice (which is who Mr. Peng probably works for). The debate is a big deal (among ID students, practitioners and in the industry) in the US right now, so even if only as a subsection, I think it's important to include design legislation/regulation. Mr. Peng is right. The definition of "interior design" is debatable. Some practioners will tell you that they don't decorate. At all. (One reason I think it's wrong to combine this article with "interior decoration".) They consider what they do to be "interior architecture," which is regulated in other parts of the world. In my opinion, this should be regulated. It's contracting, it's specifying, it's code-affecting. However, in the US, you can not say that you are an interior architect unless you have gone to school for architecture. Some other practioners, many of whom the Institute for Justice files suits on behalf of, only do decorating. And they do great jobs-decorating. They feel like the legislation will put them out of business if they can't say that they are "designers." I am a student. I am not a member of either side, and I think they both have their good points, so I think it's important to somehow include it. Like I said, it's a really big deal in the industry right now. But Lwalt, you're also very correct in that we have find a way to not let it be a soap box for both sides. Just in the discussion I think it's easy to see how strongly people feel. I just don't know. I know there are some media articles out there about it. Could we source them? (sorry, forgot to sign this) -Jenny Wms. 23 Aug 2007
I do not have an objection to coverage of the legislative and regulatory end of interior design, but I do think that this topic is better covered as a sub-article to this one. The problem with including a full discussion of the controversy involving U.S. licensing and regulation of interior design in the main article is that the general discussion of what interior design is (that is, the art of it) will become obscured by the discussion about the politics of the practice, causing this aspect to become the main focus of the article, particularly since the article is already thin on details. In other words, if I look up "interior design" in any electronic or printed encyclopedic reference, I get a discussion about the foundation of the discipline, its history, what it entails, among other things related primarily to the art of the subject. That's what I get every time, and I'm pretty sure that other readers would expect the same.
Although some interior designers don't do "interior decorating," decorating is recognized as a part of a subset of skills expected of interior designers, at least from what I've read from information provided by both electronic and printed sources. This point simply acknowledges what interior designers do in general within the scope of their jobs, among other things. And yes...there is some overlap with both interior design and interior decorating, in spite of the push for legislation to distinguish both terms from a marketing and legal standpoint. With that said, the decision to or not to merge information from the interior decorating article should not be based on what some designers do not perform as part of their job. The exclusion of this recognized skill set (speaking of "interior decorating") would represent a specific point of view of a faction of interior designers that goes against the principles of creating a neutral encyclopedic article.
So, to provide balanced coverage of the politics of interior design, I'd say that the discussion should be linked as a sub-article to the main article and encompass not only the rules, regulations and licensing issues in the U.S. and Canada, but also the same for other countries (or continents) around the world, even if the interior design practice is regulated under the guise of interior architecture. As an example, here's one reference to UK regulation of the title "architect," which also mentions "interior design as one of the activities performed by some practicing architects. But, in any event, coverage of this issue should be encyclopedic and preferably, of course, not primarily U.S. centric. Sources of information to support both sides of the legislative and regulatory discussion are acceptable, as long as the sources follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines for reliability, verifiability and neutral point of view without original research. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we know for a fact that Interior Architecture is regulated in other countries by law as a seperate profession from architecture, interior design or interior decoration? If so, how do the educational requirements overseas for Interior Architecture compare to the Interior Design programs in the US? It does seem that laws that attempt to regulate "interior design" are a US/Canada creation. If there are other countries in the world that have laws prohibiting people from calling themselves an interior designer or practicing interior design who don't have a degree in interior design, I'd be interested to hear about it. It does not seem to be the case in Europe. And what about a European trained Interior Designer or Interior Decorator who wants to work with clients in the US? Could a US trained Interior Designer from an "accredited" college move to Europe and practice Interior Architecture? I've heard it's not the easiest thing for Architects to move their practices from one country to another, but I'm not sure. Just looking for the world view on this subject. It would seem that Architecture, Interior Architecture, Interior Design, Interior Decoration, Landscape Design, Urban Planning and even Graphic Design are more and more related in the built environment. Some large architecure firms now offer all of these services. jFriday7 23 Aug 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfriday7 (talk • contribs) 22:33, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

One other note from History: Stanford White the famous architect of McKim, Mead & White kept his practice going financially by importing and selling European antiques to his clients. From Wikipedia on Stanford White: He extended the limits of architectural services to include interior decoration, dealing in art and antiques, and even planning and designing parties. He collected paintings, pottery, and tapestries. If White could not procure the right antiques for his interiors, he would sketch neo-Georgian standing electroliers or a Renaissance library table. Outgoing and social, he possessed a large circle of friends and acquaintances, many of whom became clients. White had a major influence in the "Shingle Style" of the 1880s, on Neo-Colonial style, and the Newport cottages for which he is celebrated. JFriday7 23 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfriday7 (talk • contribs) 22:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

And then we have architects who became famous for their furniture designs such as Eero Saarinen. From Wikipedia: Saarinen first received critical recognition while still working for his father, for a chair designed together with Charles Eames for the "Organic Design in Home Furnishings" competition in 1940, for which they received first prize. This chair, like all other Saarinen chairs was taken into production by the Knoll furniture company, founded by the Saarinen family friend Florence (Schust) Knoll together with her husband Hans Knoll. jFriday7 23 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfriday7 (talk • contribs) 23:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reverting article to earlier version

I reverted the article to an earlier to not only remove vandalism to the article, but to also restore the content resulting a virtual blanking of content. The statement that was left in the article implied a point of view that was not supplemented by a verifiable, reliable reference. If this content is to be returned to the article, please provide references that conform and comply with the principles of verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks for your help. →Lwalt ♦ talk 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

this is a good job —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.146.131 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interior design not a profession

It is ludicrous to say interior design is a profession - its a job. It hardly ranks up there with being a doctor, lawyer, architect and so on. I'm sure interior designers would like it to be thought of as a profession, but it isn't. (Unless American English calls all jobs professions - so Garbage Collecting is a profession for example). 80.2.194.108 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Actually, according to Wikipedia's own definition of "profession", it is "an occupation, vocation or career where specialized knowledge of a subject, field, or science is applied".

Interior Designers usually go through their own college design course, which makes them practically professionals since they have specialized knowledge on that matter. There is no need for rankings, since as long as that person has a specialized knowledge on his job, it is a profession, regardless of stature. Also, Garbage Collecting

can be done by anyone: not everyone needs to study Sanitary Engineering, for instance. In the case when garbage collectors do study Sanitary Engineering, then they can be called professionals. Sang'gre Habagat

I created an account just so I can comment on this appalling comment and help clerify some others. I am an Interior Designer from Canada (now living in Australia) and YES it is a profession!! I know of the legal issues around people calling themselves Interior Designers when they are merely Decorators which I believe is mainly in North America (could be elsewhere but I am not sure). I did not go to school and pay tens of thousands of dollars to have people continue to degrade this profession. Anyone can be a decorator, but unless you have gone through proper training you cannot be an Interior Designer. Interior Design involves creating functional drawing which follow building codes as laid out by the different areas. Are decorator’s proficient in CAD? Or obtain a registered stamp for their drawings? Or able to perform structural changes? NO! But a Professional Interior Designer can! I believe the sooner people understand the VAST differences the better. I do not think Doctors would want to be called Nurses now would they? Even if in some tiny country there is not any legal distinction...so try telling North American Doctors they are not a professional and see what happens. If you read the beginning of the Interior Decoration page it says "Interior decoration or decor is the art of decorating a room so that it is attractive, easy to use, and functions well with the existing architecture." The key word here is EXISTING. An Interior Designer is capable of complete remodels and in North America they are certified to design a building up to 30,000 square feet without an Architect to place their stamp on it (at least I sure am). If you are living in a new residential area...guess what...an Interior Designer most likely designed your home from footing and j-bolts to rafters and eaves. Plus an Interior Designer would ensured that the footings were deep enough below the regional frost line (for northern areas)so that in winter your beloved house does not shift or that in an apartment building your apartment would not burn down because your neighbour left the stove on by ensuring proper graded Fire Resistant drywall separated your dwellings, plus your bathrooms and kitchen would have GFI outlets so that you do not electrocute yourself (I hope this gives you at least an extremely small peek at what we are required to know and apply). The best way to describe it to you cynics is that generally Architect designs the skeleton of large buildings, which could be an office tower, hospital, shopping mall, hotel, etc. and the Interior Designer creates the partitions walls and space(s) inside. If you go to job search sites for many countries you'll realize that Architecture & Design are together and Decorating is usually with Arts. Even if their country does not have the legal guidelines it is obviously well understood. I believe it is the global understanding that an Interior Designer is not an Interior Decorator. So that is what this should be about. The article should describe what Interior Design is and the profession of Interior Design. All you have to do is look up the International Interior Design Association (IIDA) [3] to get a grip on the world’s view of Interior Design and how it is a regulated Profession. RedRacingCar (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ASID MEMBERS OPPOSE ASID LEGISLATIVE EFFOTS AND APPLAUD EFFORTS BY NKBA TO OPPOSE LEGISLATION!

Congratulations to the National Kitchen and Bath Association for taking a stand against the American Society of Interior Designers position on its self-serving legislative efforts.

I am an interior design professional. I have graduated with an interior design education, (including all NKBA standards) passed state-required exams, worked in the real world of interior design, paid ASID dues for years and have suffered under the discombobulated efforts of ASID.

The whole thing is simple: ASID is an insular, insecure group of professionals trying to use the government to profit. They entangle interior design colleges (also wanting to profit) into their web (via Council for Interior Design Accreditation. They strangle people in the interior design profession by creating self-made credentials and changing the parameters for those who can pay their dues and those who cannot. They smother students who have dreams of becoming an interior designer with ever-increasing levels of education, inadequate tools of measurement such as the NCIDQ Exam and of late, a required two-year slavery (oops, I mean apprenticeship) requirement.

And now, let us open our eyes to the big elephant in the room . . . . The real enemy of an interior designer is public perception. We have over 100 home-décor related televisions shows showing the cheery, slap-happy life of an interior designer! ASID has made no effort to help create a professional image of interior design in the public eye. One the most popular shows on HGTV portrays the interior designer as a mini-skirted, cleavage-heaving, dipsh*t who struts around in 3-inch high-heels. The format of the show is: designer helps client find their style by having moving men switch numerous pieces of furniture in and out of the room. No interior design plan is formed and it all gets wrapped up in 20 minutes. What are the credentials for the interior designer? The designer is assumed to have authority because of the 3-inch heels and style because she wears big dangly earrings. There is never mention of the designer’s fees.

Where is ASID? They are busy preaching to the choir about the dangers of not being NCIDQ certified and training designers to become lobbyists! The last ASID Newsletter, sent to the members, devoted two pages on how to communicate the importance of legislating interior design to the government officials! ASID spends their members’ dues to buy (oops, I mean lobby) the government to police an interior designer’s activities. ASID should be helping members promote themselves in the free market, via the most powerful elephant in the room (now in high-definition).Regardless of how strongly an interior designer stands behind their credentials, the general public has no clue as to which appellation – ASID, NKBA, IIDA, IDS, is in their best interest. Because after watching HGTV, a design professional just needs a pair of big dangly earrings!

ASID wants to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare by having the government control and regulate interior designers. WAKE-UP! The US Government is out of money, we are at war, our kids are not getting properly educated, people are losing their jobs, crime is going up and sick and dying Americans can’t get medical help because they are poor and uninsured. Are there really enough resources within our government to police and monitor space planning, wall color selection, furniture placement and window treatment concepts? ASID puts forth enormous effort funding creation of the law, but are they planning on monitoring and reinforcing the law as well? Unions were created to help workers unite because they were being mistreated, ASID was created to promote individual businesses profit. Now they want to use the public’s taxes to police their own interests. They should not be allowed to have individuals profit on the backs of the taxpayers.

ASID credentials have no weight in the free market. No matter what you call yourself, it does not matter to the client. If ASID efforts succeed in limiting the use of the term Interior Designer in more states, it still won’t matter to the general public. Interior Designer, Interior Re-designer, Interior Stylist, Home-Stager, Interior Decorator all mean the same thing to a client. In reality, all home décor professionals affect the safe, health and well-being of the public so just where does government regulation start and end? The only people who care about ASID credentials are people with ASID credentials.

However, according to this article, NKBA has spent in excess of $1,000,000 wisely, as they are gaining a foothold in consumer recognition. In college, we used NKBA standards to learn competencies for kitchen and bath design, not ASID standards.The general public makes no distinction between a registered interior designer and the ever-increasing abundance of home decorators, home-stylists, home-stagers, furniture-sales consultants, re-designers, closet-cleaning coordinators, flower re-arrangers and napkin-folding specialists. Many of these home industry entrepreneurs call themselves interior designers and have no idea there are state laws that may apply to them. I live in a state where interior design is regulated, so why do all these people continue to consider themselves interior designers? Because the laws sit on the books and no one is enforcing them.

Since it is not ASID but the general public that hires design professionals, it is logical that ASID should focus on helping all their members generate income and not be the self-serving behemoth it has become.Why are ASID interior designers pretending to be architects? Unsuspecting students are applying to CIDA design schools in droves and the first thing they are expected to do is join ASID. They get fooled (oops, I mean informed) that a degree in interior design holds the same weight as a degree in architecture. What they don’t realize is an interior designer is not an architect. In most states an interior designer cannot seal or stamp plans (which means legally authorize). That is what an architect does. Some interior design schools use the term interior architect. This means you go through the similar training and education as an architect, but you don’t get to be an architect. ASID is pushing for educational requirements to acknowledge only four-year interior design colleges that meet their criteria. Yet, in most states an interior designer does not have the legal authority to make structural decisions. Why would a person go to a four-year interior design school and try to be an architect?

It seems ASID’s agenda is to treat interior design as architecture. It is clear the term interior design does not elevate itself to that of architect. Since many of ASID members have been “grandfathered” in, it really would be a danger to the health, welfare and safety if they suddenly had the authority of an architect without passing the Architect Registration Exam. The precious words “interior design” that ASID is guarding and protecting mean little to the outside world -- now a global economy not simply a “society” of American interior designers.

The National Kitchen and Bath Association is earning greater respect in the design community and since they have taken this position against ASID, they have earned my respect as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.191.206 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)