I can appreciate the value of various styles, and I think the world would be worse off if all artists decided to reduce their work to some definition of its "necessary" components. Art helps to evolve us. It's also probably impossible to define the "necessary" components for most art.
However, I think there are shades of gray in the question of minimalist design for websites. Web applications aren't like Melk Abbey, Queluz Palace, or the Grand Palais. They aren't meant to be beheld. They're meant to be used at an intricate level, and it can often be harder to do that when there are ornamental or otherwise decorative components to the design. I still think the author's thesis is true - that minimalism isn't the end-all of design. But I do think that - on balance - minimalist designs are more effective than other designs for web applications.
Other kinds of websites (Some websites are meant to be beheld, after all) can lose value with a minimalist approach - or not.
>>>Web applications aren't like Melk Abbey, Queluz Palace, or the Grand Palais. They aren't meant to be beheld.
So is architecture, in a way. Living in a house is close to using it. It's almost interaction design. (Arguably, it's more true of houses than of monuments.)
It comes down to the level of intricacy in the usage. The extent to which I use...
...the Sistine Chapel - Stand in it.
...my house - Live in it.
...a web app - Click all sorts of buttons, encounter alerts, make micro-decisions.
As the intricacy of usage increases, so too does the risk of negative distraction (as opposed to positive distraction, like being awestruck by the Sistine Chapel's ceiling and not hearing a friend call my name).
My house: cook in it, sleep in it, exercise in it, practice music in it, work in it, build furniture in it, wash my clothes in it, entertain guests, dine in it and so on and so forth.
Most web apps: browse it.
Can't remember what my point is, but that you're oversimplifying on the first two examples and expanding the web app example.
However, I think there are shades of gray in the question of minimalist design for websites. Web applications aren't like Melk Abbey, Queluz Palace, or the Grand Palais. They aren't meant to be beheld. They're meant to be used at an intricate level, and it can often be harder to do that when there are ornamental or otherwise decorative components to the design. I still think the author's thesis is true - that minimalism isn't the end-all of design. But I do think that - on balance - minimalist designs are more effective than other designs for web applications.
Other kinds of websites (Some websites are meant to be beheld, after all) can lose value with a minimalist approach - or not.