Let's all remember that UX (& IxD!) should be based on research and testing, not on assumed patterns. The statement that "Make your website more scannable by u

Let's all remember that UX (& IxD!) should be based on research and testing, not on assumed patterns. The statement that "Make your website more scannable by using less text and adding more imagery (as humans are 90% visual creatures)" sounds as much like dumbing-down as anything I have ever heard, resulting in useless pages that I don't need. In fact at http://uxmyths.com/ http://uxmyths.com/ myths 4, 7 & 8 counter this idea of more visual being better. The mantra I like more is "content is king". Think man pages. Although a specific use case, man pages benefit from concise, precise information, and pictures would be a detriment. Same goes for most news articles. Similarly with error messages, the article uses specific errors to make a case and then uses Skype's login to illustrate the "right way". These are two very different use-case shapes being forced into a square hole. As many of us here should know, there is nothing worse than a fuzzy, warm error message that can't be searched online or in documentation. Sure, errors should not be "error: 0x15654213!" but should include enough information for the user to solve the problem (and please do not use exclamation marks in errors!). Often, some technical info, even if just an error code and a short description are enough to resolve the issue. If you can't log in, as in the Skype example, well, it's one of two things 99% of the time. You probably don't need to google that. I like the rest of what the author has to say, especially that part about developers getting to do it over and over while UX is expected to be right first time (assuming the place you work actually does UX, mine doesn't and the results vary greatly). My workplace doesn't test either which I think is a huge mistake (so much so I almost couldn't write this sentence without swearing). That's something I am trying to change.