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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty might not work if put in actual use, because it is no longer an experiment.

http://www.airbnb.com/ http://www.flickr.com/ http://carbonmade.com/ http://tenderapp.com/ http://new.myfonts.com http://www.made.com/

  > http://new.myfonts.com

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.

Did an engineer design that, or did the equivalent of an interaction designer do it?

Still my point is that aesthetics, functionality, and usability are all subsets of design (according to the author).

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.

The way it is shaped and crafted has a reason - that's design (not beauty). Though reason creates beauty.

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.

Pretty v/s Decoration. Rephrasing: "Best design is not decorated – and it works. + It is pretty, because it works."

The usable get rewarded for their usability by being used.

Thanks for throwing this perspective man. Now I know I really should stop caring about CSS Galleries and 'make it pretty designer gatherings'

A designer's true reward is 'used'.

And what they mean is more 'gradients and bigger buttons'. Instead of more 'easy to interact and find a way to connect" (true spirit of web 2.0)