2
On the (un?)importance of design
10d • macbudkowski.eth •

Incredibly dumb take from an otherwise smart writer. His fallacy is that he sees design as something to be good or bad at. It's a bit like the normie understanding of dressing up. You can either dress badly by e.g. putting on worse clothes than usual, or you can dress nicely by putting on nice clothes. He doesn't seem to have a social sense to aesthetics, vibes and branding. The article is from 2011 and they were both, before and after the redesign their site, sporting a "we're the tech guys" vibe. During those days you'd see their site and immediately trust the guy, because you'd be sure that he knows what he's doing. Already the name "WP Engine" gives this away entirely. The fallacy is in thinking that design is somehow a process that produces beauty, almost how when you're "dressing up in the normie sense, you become "more well dressed." Of course though if you look on the cat walks of the world you can clearly see that wearing a suit and a tie isn't "well dressed" or beautiful anymore. In the same way there isn't beautiful and bad design. Design produces an output that is desired, given inputs, requirements and limitations. That output can be ugly as hell, it may still be "well designed." There is no (un)importance of design. That's like saying there's an unimportance of day, or the sun, or mondays. It cannot be
Agree that he narrowed down 'design' to a more popculture interpretation of it which basically means 'aesthetics'. Not sure if consciously or not, but this quote: "Hipmunk is the same thing as Orbitz or Travelocity—the only difference is amazing design, not just because it looks good but because it’s so useable. In the words of Joel Spoksly—the design “affords usability." suggests he gets it. So maybe he just dumbed it down for the sake of making it more understandable to an average B2B who reads this blog? Anyway, found this post interesting because he highlights how nowadays even B2B projects should put more emphasis on design.