&gt; I&#x27;m arguing that &quot;unfamiliar&quot; does not necessarily mean &quot;hard to find&quot;.<p>Fair point. :)<p>&gt; &quot;Interestingness&quot; is what humans get a buzz from and reward each other for all the time, so if I get a dose of interesting too, served just right and not too much, then it&#x27;s a winner.<p>I agree with you but, clearly, it&#x27;s a hard balance to find. Going back to the article, most website owners (and some designers) don&#x27;t know what that balance is so they take a safe option. It&#x27;s an understandable choice, they&#x27;re not experts. I think it&#x27;s a net win if those non-experts don&#x27;t experiment but settle on something that&#x27;s easily readable. It&#x27;s a step up from the time when everybody was doing their own thing and standards didn&#x27;t exist.<p>In short, you&#x27;re right: a well-designed website is still better than a generic one. But a generic one is better than a mess put together without paying attention to standards.