Looks like I'm in the minority in agreeing with the author's sentiments. It's a counter-intuitive argument but I'll try to make it... I'm of the motherfuckingw

Looks like I'm in the minority in agreeing with the author's sentiments. It's a counter-intuitive argument but I'll try to make it... I'm of the motherfuckingwebsite.com school of thought--an evangelist for simple design--but I think simple and unique often go hand-in-hand. Take my industry: newspapers. Ninety-nine percent take a flat-pack, everyfuckingwebsite.com approach. I think that conformity compromises design. Readability should be at the heart of most sites--let alone news sites--yet I find most hard to read for colours, distractions and so on. The news websites I enjoy are simple and unique--like the Drudge Report and Hacker News, which are pretty much just a list of links with minimal layers. I think that gets to the core of my purpose as a reader: no bullshit clicking around for ages to find what I want/need to read--just here's the news in our view. For me, that's a big reason for the Daily Mail's success too. Content aside, I think their presentation of news is second to none. You could argue it's like a lot of sites but I disagree: few run tall pictures, nine-deck headlines and so on. MailOnline's production is similar to the way editors put a page together for print. They've transitioned much of the craft online. I think that's how the website retains something of a newspaper 'feel' which most have lost. Anyway, I should stop writing, I'm going off on tangents and probably talking gibberish, just wanted to chuck in my 2p.