[FlamingMoe]

“A website isn't art. It's a tool with one job: get the user to do the thing they came for.”

Eh, I don’t think this is accurate. A website does serve utility, but if you remove art from the discussion, then it becomes soulless, which is not the world we want to live in.

Take HN for example. The first time I visited, I thought it was a terrible, dated design. But over time I grew to appreciate it. I think it is, in fact, quite artistic; it has a style, it makes a statement.

If HN were “modern and user-first” maybe users would have an initial better impression, maybe they would even “convert” better initially. But long-term, it would start to lose its soul.

[adampunk]

Yeah I think the whole "the website is to help the user do a job" mostly exists to give people who do UX a position of authority. The user needs to do a job; we can't pre-specify that job entirely; users who are frustrated in their job will leave with it incomplete. Those three things are totally true, but they are often used to justify a third thing: input on website design should be driven by user feedback, filtered through UX research. A refusal of the third thing is where you get design like HN. You can do UX research; everyone should. But if it is more than merely an input into design, you become rudderless.

[duskdozer]

I guess in a world filled with heavy, modern, nauseating design, being fast and simple can be a statement. But I don't think websites meant to be used should be art or statements.