For you and ErrantX, I think you're reading too much into my parallel: I was just replying to a statement made in the parent. Obviously I'll expect that someone making changes to my code is qualified to do so. It's presumably parallel for interactions between multiple designers on the same project – one can make reasoned changes to the other's work.

In the described event, there clearly wasn't communication but we don't really know anything more about it.

Here's a question, though: let's say you're designing something, say a logo, and there's been a fairly clear idea/requirements laid out, there's some sort of a feedback loop etc. Do you at some point settle on a finished work that you'll offer up and that's it? Or if the client keeps asking you to add more ninjas and make that T red &c., will you acquiesce whether or not it works for you?

Edit: or if there's a second designer who has a slightly different idea of how the finished work should look, how is that resolved?

Your "logo" example is too contrived. What is more typical is to get a design for something like a form, that has made no consideration for user interaction (space for error messages, error icons, disabling/enabling buttons, etc.) This is where user interface programmers really stand apart from everyone else... Their designs actually work.

I'm sorry if it's contrived (I felt it somewhat related to the anecdote above); what I was trying to get at is whether designers have a point where they can't further deviate from their vision without compromising it, even if requested to by a co-designer or the client.

The designer's feedback loop compares the client's request to the initial design brief and the nascent work on the logo, branding, etc. If the requested changes contradict or diminish these, you kindly explain how...

In this potentially dicey scenario the ability to communicate with credibility is key; Everything we humans create has inherent connotations that can be interpreted and explained, and a designer should be able to justify how every mark on the page contributes to the experience of the end user.

You negotiate a price based on (x) number of designs and (x) number of modifications.

Otherwise the person will just keep draining you, because everyone thinks they can design, except they can't. So they dilute your work to the point that it's a terrible mess if you give them a chance.

"The problem with design is that it is something that is not easy, but it SEEMS easy, because everyone has an opinion, and they think it's just as valid as anyone else's, even a professional designer. "

No, the problem with design is that every designer has a different opinion, and believes that their opinion is 100% correct, and there is no sway room at all. It has to be done that way, or no one will come to the site, even though it is exactly opposite as every other designer, who also has such strong opinions.

Design is subjective, but designers really believe it is not, that is the most important thing ever, and do not listen to anyone else.

You must have been working on really shitty teams. Design is not merely subjective. It is measurable and in fact the subject of many A/B tests. Often involving designers. Who does not believe they got it right the first time, or they wouldn't be doing A/B testing.

Of course design is subjective, but my skill isn't operating photoshop. It's an understanding of the subjective forces in a way that I can interact with skillfully. Any random joe blow can have(and does) have an opinion, but it's not equal to mine. That said, there are definitely designers who are better than me, and who I would be in a similar position with.

That is an unfair caricature. I can't think of any designer who has ever said something so absurd.