For all the pretension in this piece, I think the design on that page is pretty poor.<p>Serifed fonts can be very pretty on the page, but are tricky to use on the web. The low resolution (~100ppi) of current monitors brutalizes them in small sizes. Trying to use them the way he's doing is the result of an ignorance of the limitations of his medium.<p>Reading through the article (after magnifying a few times to make it readable), he seems to be grappling for some "arteest" notion of design.<p>The fact is though, that designers have work because a very large number of web sites need published. They do not need to be masterpieces. They need to support and conform to the needs of the information and workflow of the site. They need to support and reinforce the client's brand. And they need to not turn people away by being archaic or ugly.<p>You don't need a Pollock or Warhol to do that kind of work. In fact, it'd be a terrific waste of money to hire that kind of talent to design an online store. There is an army of solid designers out there who can meet the above requirements.<p>I'd also like to add that, as a web developer, I find print designers (or designers who went to school and studied print design) to be the absolute worst to work with. They do not understand the limitations of the web. They don't make designs that can flow, and can handle content created by the client through their CMS. They produce unusably rigid designs and then get emotional when they're changed to meet the needs of the client.