The author writes a solid article, makes good points, then blows the conclusion. It's not "function over form, always" It's function with form, always. They'r

The author writes a solid article, makes good points, then blows the conclusion. It's not "function over form, always" It's function with form, always. They're properly inseparable when building a product. They aren't separate things such that one should ever be over another, or that one should ever suffer to the other. You consider the product and match the function and form together to that product's needs. It should never be function over form, or form over function. They work together in unison to be one: simpatico. The function isn't separate from the form, the form isn't separate from the function. The necessary end result product can only exist with both, as such they necessarily inform and cooperate with each other at all times. The flawed approach described in the article, was form over function, which is the identical conceptual mistake to function over form. It's the mistake of ever considering the two to be separate or to ever elevating one over the other. If a high density information presentation approach is the best form, that's not function over form. That's the proper form for the function of the product. That means the two are working together - neither is elevated - to deliver the best combined form + function for the product in question and its specific needs.