While I agree with what the general gist of the article entails, don't let the UI get in the way, I don't particularly agree with all of the specifics. My main

While I agree with what the general gist of the article entails, don't let the UI get in the way, I don't particularly agree with all of the specifics. My main problem with this article is the fact that the author pits "experience" against "function," and thereby separates the two into different camps. He doesn't have any in-between, wherein there would be a balance of experience _and_ function; instead, he focuses only on the two extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a very functional website. I'm a fan of minimal (functional) design, but at the same time, if you're able to make a site beautiful as well as functional, there is no reason not to do so. I thought his use of newspond was a particularly poor example: it is a perfectly functional website, but happens to be very well designed. As a designer, I obsess over the design, but as a user, I have no trouble getting content out of the site. I would say that experience, from a user's perspective, is about 40% of what is expected. A good experience, a smooth interface. On the other 60% is the functionality, which is a given. There is no reason you can't have both, you just need to know _how much_ of each is necessary in your particular application. (This article reads a little like cannon fodder, as well, but at least it brings up a valid--albeit age-old--discussion.)