Design to me is a mix of art and science. This article is simple math. It's hard to take such a design philosophy seriously without any supporting evidence to e

Design to me is a mix of art and science. This article is simple math. It's hard to take such a design philosophy seriously without any supporting evidence to explain why the human brain doesn't find some simple concepts intuitive: - Things are different at the edges - Objects with text underneath are taller than ones without - Temporary features (pop ups etc) at the forefront of attention are a different size to things in the background - Things inside a clear frame might follow different, contrasting proportions to those outside I'm not a designer but I am a drummer. Rhythm-by-the-numbers is boring. Good rhythm plays around the edges, and within the same beat (say four to the bar) people enjoy different beats laid on top (say, three beats). You can speed up and slow down, emphasise boundaries by adding a little extra time to the last beat of the bar, etc. Is visual design any different? Don't designers use the word "rhythm" precisely because it is a good metaphor? None of this says Apple that has got it right. But the criticism just doesn't seem to have an aesthetic foundation.