"And that means more pretty than functional." You can have aesthetically pleasing and functional at the same time - they aren't mutually exclusive. Making the

"And that means more pretty than functional." You can have aesthetically pleasing and functional at the same time - they aren't mutually exclusive. Making the interface attractive doesn't mean 'dumbing down' the interface either. Ubuntu is arguably the most popular Linux Desktop distribution and their model of UX development is to have a dedicated UX team designing the Ubuntu desktop experience. Presumably they read feedback from the community of Ubuntu users but ultimately, they make the final call on UX decisions. The model for open source code contributions just doesn't work for visual and interaction design. (Or if it does, I've yet to see a successful example that wasn't an exception rather than the rule). When there are too many participants in the visual and interaction design of a program or OS, you end up with a project pulled in every direction and pleasing to no-one. But if you go the opposite route and limit design decisions to a dedicated UX team or sole designer, you end up generating resentment from contributors or users who feel their input is being ignored.