Keep in mind that GOV.UK is more than just the homepage. While I agree that the top of the homepage looks like those useless landing pages, it becomes very evident that there’s more to the design as you scroll or click through onto other pages.
IMO the design is good. Not the best, certainly not award-winning (except maybe an award specifically pertaining to government websites), but still very good. It presents its information with such clarity that I would say it’s UX done right.
Anyway, awards are meaningless.
What ‘Design of the year award’ has this won?
I feel like the author is taking a strawman and bashing it to death in the name of pretty websites. I do agree that gov.uk isn’t the best example of an intuitive web design, but it isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen either.
Taking a look at the list of results from a search query did make me double take though. Inline tabs, no differentiation other than a bit of shading. Definite headaches are coming…
<< apologies for the duplicate below >>
I really disliked the tone in the article.
Put some effort in. Make it nice. Ugliness doesn’t sell, it never has.
Craigslist, Reddit, and HN would like to have a word. Many websites don’t need to be visually stimulating to provide value. Design is more than pixels on a page.
I urge the industry to keep (“UX <insert whatever you want here>”) these people away from Photoshop, or Fireworks, or Keynote, or Powerpoint, or whatever it if they use to — I won’t call it — ‘design’. It impacts us all and it’s killing the highly evolved art of real web-design.
Notice how the author is discrediting “UX whatevers” by insinuating they can’t code and must resort to “primitive” tools such as Powerpoint and Photoshop. Also, not only is the “highly evolved art of real web-design” subjective, it’s pretentious.
[Comment removed by author]