[meelford]

It’s the same with articles: I tend to prefer those from scientific magazines, where decoration is minimal and the authors focus on conveying meaning, rather than those that are perfectly designed on Medium or LinkedIn but, in reality, are very shallow and often outdated. Most deliberately decorated products also look over-processed.

[SZJX]

That's the whole point of the article: It's not about "decoration", but about making the underlying UX flow make coherent sense.

[coyleandrew]

Thank you for pointing this out! I wrote the article, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. I agree with most comments in this thread, but they're addressing a different issue. I assume they didn’t read the article in full. There’s a common frustration with designers who create superficial user interfaces—visually attractive at first glance, but offering little to the user. There's a good article on this topic called, "The dribbblisation of design."

Good design isn’t about making things pretty. It’s about making things make sense. Visual design is just one piece of that puzzle.

To reduce a designer’s role to 'making it look nice' is a fundamental misunderstanding of the craft. The shape of the interface reflects the thought behind it—ideally rooted in a deep understanding of the user’s context, goals, and jobs-to-be-done.

Thank you for reading the article!