You must not live in the same world I do. I get paid to show people messaging they want to see.
Do you get paid by vision-impaired users to represent them? Great! Do that.
And this nonsense about design ignoring the vision impaired is misinformed. Now that we're able to accurately represent content using the full spectrum of HTML, accessibility is better than ever. Most of the sites I build these days have very little ineffective syntax. Disable the stylesheet entirely, if you're into living like it's 1999, and you'll still be able to see the content.
You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you!
> You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you!
One of the reasons I minimize my use of web apps (e.g., Gmail) is because I got tired and frustrated with the re-styling every 6-12 months; where I was no longer comfortable just because it didn't look the same; and I was no longer efficient because it was all re-organized; and I was annoyed because I was having conscious thoughts about the interface, instead of just using it to get stuff done. (This happens to a lesser extent with desktop apps, but at least I can avoid updating, etc.) Did someone consciously decide their product was no longer for me, so they didn't care what I think? Will they care if their decisions make me stop using their product?
I'm hesitant to accept the opinionated, brusque ideas about design being thrown around here, but even if I did, they don't seem to account for the effects of evolving the product while the userbase stays the same. I get the idea of incremental progress, but can you seriously believe that every change is good and is worth the costs? Yesterday, we missed the mark with skeuomorphism, today we know we need to throw it all out, and then we will have achieved perfection!
See, this is exactly what I mean. You don't seem to be aware that it's possible for there to be a difference between "good design" and "maximize immediate profits." This is why shoddy clickbait is taking over the web.
You seem to be unaware of the human element in all of this; designers are proud to create the best experience they can, developers are proud to implement it, and clients are proud to let it speak on their behalf.
You answer your own question, and emphasize my point with your perception of "shoddy clickbait" being popular. Obviously, for some reason, people like it. Who are you to say it should be eliminated?
So, again, if you don't like it, it's not intended for you.
Do you get paid by vision-impaired users to represent them? Great! Do that.
And this nonsense about design ignoring the vision impaired is misinformed. Now that we're able to accurately represent content using the full spectrum of HTML, accessibility is better than ever. Most of the sites I build these days have very little ineffective syntax. Disable the stylesheet entirely, if you're into living like it's 1999, and you'll still be able to see the content.
You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you!