> Remember the round cornered buttons? Yeah, I remember too. The only way it's okay for a designer to use them now is if it's #ironic. So keep it functional, not decorative. The round corners were never suiting any purpose.<p>But you have to choose <i>some</i> shape for them to be; why is square the default/baseline, and round the modification (the one with 'something added')? You could equally well say to, "just use round corners, keep it functional, not decorative—we austere users of the internet don't require any flashy straight-edged ornamentation."<p>I'm sure someone can give me an argument about how the straight edges make it easier for the eyes to associate aligned items or something like that, but if you're just slightly rounding some rectangles, not using ovals or something, the difference will be negligible.<p>The problem isn't introducing aesthetic qualities for their own sake—it's only a problem when you <i>exchange</i> something with a concrete purpose because you give higher value to the purely aesthetic thing.<p>(The quote uses the term 'decorate,' which ordinarily I think is a good choice, since in the case of decorations, you're <i>adding</i> content, which can lead to useless clutter—but! my opening argument here is basically that choosing round over square is <i>not</i> decorative in that sense.)<p>So, I'm left with the feeling that the quote really just comes down to justifying the newer bandwagon.