Some people would claim that his own site is over-designed and too pretty. He isn't exactly following the Bauhaus tradition himself.
Pretty can be functional, in fact pretty is functional. Pretty is about expression and exploration. Pretty doesn't solve it all alone but neither does function.
Would you critique a blogger because his posts where way too philosophical and reflective rather than utilitarian?
Would you critique a developer for creating experiments in HTML5 that have no utility?
I would agree with him if HP, Amazon, BP and all the other fortune 500 companies where pretty over functional but they are not.
His argument is based on sites who's purpose is to be explorative and expressive not purely functional.
Design is not about style, but style is a tool the designer can use.
There is a difference between experimenting and intention. Experiments are fine but this is more about what you put in practice.
Anyways, I don't critique their experiment but their intention. If you experiment to make it 'prettier' then it's a fail. Experiment to make it more functional.
Your point "functional is pretty" - is very true. Nothing better than the thing that works.
With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their intention?
Judging intention is probably the least useful form of argument.
Why should it be a fail to experiment with making it prettier? What exactly is wrong with that?
You are falling victim to your own critique. You are judging based on your subjective opinion about some ones intentions. Which is fine. Just don't claim it to be somehow a more rational argument.
With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their intention?
This is easier with some kind of sites than with others. If it's a company site trying to sell a product or a service, then obviously the intention is to... sell you the product or service. If the "design" doesn't push that intention or gets in the way of you learning about the product and why you want to buy it, then they've failed.
With personal sites and blogs it's harder to judge, and I'd agree with you. But I think in those places design (at least in the sense that the author is talking about) is less important. Someone's personal site might in part be a sandbox or playground to try out new HTML5 or CSS techniques.
Everyone's opinion is subjective. Claiming that that somehow invalidates the argument is disingenuous. Like everything, it's a continuum -- some things are easier to "objectively" judge, others are not and are more a matter of taste and experimentation.
"If you experiment to make it 'prettier' then it's a fail. Experiment to make it more functional."
Such a simplistic point of view.
Designers take inspiration from other works. A beautiful piece of work doesn't have to be functional if it's largely just used to express ones creative outputs or to inspire others.
Concept cars and fashion shows often do the same thing: help inspire others and influence upcoming styles.
Saying that their experimental efforts are failures because it's not completely functional (a concept car that can't function, a wardrobe that few souls would wear, a website that has out of the ordinary behavior) is completely missing the point.
The car door analogy is faulty. A designer spent a lot of time making that car door look pretty -after- an engineer made it work. It isn't that exact shape just because it works.
I disagree. The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door. In essence, the engineer 'designed' the door. The author's argument is that design refers to functionality and usability - not only aesthetic appeal. Yes, appealing colors and gradients make the site easier on the eyes, and should be included as a subset of the entire design process.
My interpretation is that design encompasses all UI interactions, and the author feels that too many self-described designers defer to the aesthetics while underplaying other important considerations like usability and intuitiveness, even though the title of designer implies (or should imply) those.
The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door.
Did an engineer design that, or did the equivalent of an interaction designer do it?
A car door analogy is weak, simply because I don't know enough about how they are designed and built. Maybe an artist goes to town, and then the engineers and interaction team have to bend over backwards to make the concept work (probably a bad way go about making car doors!).
Still my point is that aesthetics, functionality, and usability are all subsets of design (according to the author).
Actually that's completely not how cars are designed. Design comes, then come the engineers, then come the clerks, multiply that by a lot of iterations and you got the car which looks far different from the first concept.
A car is a great example how a fantastic design in terms of aesthetics can fail against engineers' (or economics) limitations. A quite recent example: BMW X6's tail lights were sent back to redesign after engineers found out that one 'beauty' line caused Cx (aerodynamics factor) increase. Imagine it happens all the time during the design process which takes years, not days.
Hackers are good at design too, but not in the visual aspect but in the structural and architectural ones. Hackers do strive for simplicity and elegance in the smallest hack.
Best example is of Unix. It has this inherent "design" in it, which makes it appealing to all hackers. Add a layout of awesome UI and you have the Mac. All the rich features with a decent packaging.
If the designers you work with prefer "pretty" over "usable," then you should find better designers. I've worked with plenty who do not fit this tunnel-vision visual designer stereotype.
The article is based on a false dichotomy that's part of the unending design v. engineering meta-argument. "Best design is ugly – and it works"? Rather, the best design works - and is pretty.
If you follow delicious hotlist, you'll find some of the unusable-but-pretty designs he mentions... but you'll find more of the pretty-but-usable ones.
The usable get rewarded for their usability by being used.
That's not as common as it used to be, is it? I do still run into sites that annoy me, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was during the first wave of "this entire site will be in Flash because that lets us do cool design stuff" web design.
Pretty can be functional, in fact pretty is functional. Pretty is about expression and exploration. Pretty doesn't solve it all alone but neither does function.
Would you critique a blogger because his posts where way too philosophical and reflective rather than utilitarian?
Would you critique a developer for creating experiments in HTML5 that have no utility?
I would agree with him if HP, Amazon, BP and all the other fortune 500 companies where pretty over functional but they are not.
His argument is based on sites who's purpose is to be explorative and expressive not purely functional.
Design is not about style, but style is a tool the designer can use.