I expected to at least be entertained by the article but it's so full of faulty reasoning I stopped reading about three quarters of the way through. It's full o

I expected to at least be entertained by the article but it's so full of faulty reasoning I stopped reading about three quarters of the way through. It's full of platitudes and has little critical reasoning to support such a broad statement as its title. >> "If you possess a good eye and steady hand, you should feel compelled to create something that looks pleasing" Okay.. Goes on to include a big picture of Michelangelo's "David" to suggest that designers should strive to create masterpieces in the same vein...? >> "People use applications because of their purpose, not because it is pleasing to the eye." Another baseless generality. The first part is obviously true, but it doesn't follow that people don't care about appearance. >> "The only time a UI should be updated is if it impacts the ability of a user to actually use your application." Another unsupported opinion phrased as an absolute. >> "It hurts retention" This would have been a natural point to include actual data. Nonetheless the article falls back on making generalizations about people's behavior. >> "Does it really add up, or are you just giving designers busywork that doesn't amount to anything in the end? Do we have concrete evidence that what we are doing will provide benefit to the company or users, or just feel that it would be better if the UI was redesigned? Take a minute, think about that one." There's not a single piece of concrete evidence in this entire article.