In what world does the order of learning go CSS > Terminal for the "designer who codes"? In no way should that be on the list for the author's target audience.
Just about any application in a team is going to require you to run the application locally so you can work on it. That immediately means you need to understand how to navigate your terminal, run commands and install software through package managers. Almost always, doing so is made more difficult if you don't understand what your .bash_profile does.
This isn't about learning the full unix suite, it's about knowing enough to get the product you're working on running locally. Speaking from experience, I've known so many designers who were simply ineffective in their feature teams because they had no ability to even see the feature be developed locally. They all required a developer to push up a staging environement, generally later in the product build.
Designers who can actually run the software early and give feedback during this time have a leg up on those that can't.
HTML, CSS and Javascript do not require ANY use of terminal, commands or package managers, or even knowing those things exist.
The designer who wants to code can learn and develop locally all day long without touching terminals or package managers, or any of that boring lifeless crap that will drive them away.
If the designer who wants to code wishes to version control, they could use Github Desktop or other similar non-terminal applications. You can push and pull all day long without touching a terminal. Github Desktop is a nice, lightweight application that works well and is easy and reliabe. I use if often.
An example: The designer who wants to code may decide they want to make an interactive animation. This means they are about to embark on a journey of HTML DOM, CSS, and javascript. It DOES NOT mean they are embarking on a journey of typing a bunch of distracting non-code into a lifeless terminal. Forget about that. Focus on code - HTML, CSS, JS.
> "They all required a developer to push up a staging environement"
Oh no! How dare they!
If the developer hasn't made a staging environment, I'd be asking why not. It's not hard, and is appreciated for sending preview links to internal non-technical colleagues or clients who wish to see progress or specific features. Staging environments are a very good idea, are you suggesting they are not?
I think they are referring to "needing a developer" to push to staging, not that there wasn't a staging environment. That means the designer who codes is still blocked by available developer time, and if the developer is out that they, they what? just don't work for the day?
This not-entirely-hypothetical individual just started learning to code. Getting caught up with package managers isn't great, but are you expecting them to write all of the code they need from scratch? Don't professional developers use other people's work (aka libraries) to make their job easier? Why wouldn't a beginning developer also want access to those same libraries?
What's easier, writing a whole interactive animation library from scratch, or using someone else's library that implements a bunch of stuff for you? If you want to use this library, why not use some sort of software to manage it? Or is the designer-developer not allowed to use Google to find cool libraries to reduce the amount of typing distracting code into a lifeless VScode window they have to do?
> "...expecting them to write all of the code they need from scratch?"
Yes! Coding is not about downloading a library and hoping it prevents you needing to code.
> "writing a whole interactive animation library"
You mean all 20 lines of code needed for an animated widget? Sure... let's download a 500 line animation library and use 5% of its functionality.
Package ideology reminds me of Wordpress plugins. "Just use a plugin" works great until you're drowning in plugins and your server CPU is spiking beyond reason because the plugins don't all play nice together.
As I said, the designer who codes may be welcomed by their engineer colleagues, who provide flexible means for them to contribute and push changes. Perhaps to a certain branch or otherwise streamline the process via Github Desktop or some less intense process, or even just sFTP to a place that can be previewed for later integration once everyone is happy the code is sound.
You didn't like my Wordpress plugin comparison!? I'll write it better. Package clutter, maintenance, integrity, updates, all those things are spinning plates. Similar to Wordpress' needy and naggy plugin ecosystem found there.
New coders/designers should spin less plates at once. Raw CSS animation, then JS loops, timers and manipulations. Add a one line easing function you find somewhere such as this excellent page: spicyyoghurt.com/tools/easing-functions, and this helps fulfil the "who codes" goal more than "who installs."
You're right there are libraries that will be used and useful. But don't be surprised if designer-types are not too fond of some backend-centric workflows and tools popular among programmers, Which is okay. Diversity of tools and approaches is a good thing. Aiming for minimal code sent to client is a good thing. Hope that leaves on a better note.
I disagree but probably the level of "learn the terminal" is the source of disagreement. Coming from nothing, cd and ls do actually take a second to wrap your head around. I don't think a designer/developer necessarily needs to be able to pipe commands to each other but running yarn and hitting ^C is something every web dev should be able to do, even if it isn't second nature.
It's second nature for us but I've been at it since the DOS days,
In what world does the order of learning go CSS > Terminal for the "designer who codes"? In no way should that be on the list for the author's target audience.