I kept reading down the page hoping to see the reasoning behind the choices made, but was disappointed to find none.
This is why I disagree with the notion that style is only skin-deep. It's an integral part of UX, but only when considered within the framework of UX. The points value is now shaded in 3D: Why? The rank is now an orange circle: How does this help the user?
The best visual design is always based on UX. Do users consult the rank often? If not, the orange should be reserved for something else more demanding of the user's attention. Are the point totals interactive? If not, the 3D shading should be saved for use as an affordance somewhere where there is interaction. It's questions like these that turn a pretty visual design into something that not only looks but works great.
> This is why I disagree with the notion that style is only skin-deep.
Semantics, but I think you are agreeing with your parent that there should be something deeper than the gloss applied in this redesign. That design must go more than skin-deep. Arguably the word “style” could refer to paint jobs, so your statement was fairly confusing.
I fully agree with your comments regarding the bizarre amount of visual attention demanded by the rank numbers here and the points’ affordance of clickability (and said as much on a comment there).
This is why I disagree with the notion that style is only skin-deep. It's an integral part of UX, but only when considered within the framework of UX. The points value is now shaded in 3D: Why? The rank is now an orange circle: How does this help the user?
The best visual design is always based on UX. Do users consult the rank often? If not, the orange should be reserved for something else more demanding of the user's attention. Are the point totals interactive? If not, the 3D shading should be saved for use as an affordance somewhere where there is interaction. It's questions like these that turn a pretty visual design into something that not only looks but works great.