I suspected my point in “Critical Understanding” was buried in enough subtlety to warrant an explanation; here it is.
There was one point made, and one alluded to within that short piece. None of them had anything to do with what was being said, sorry to anyone who thought the article was about colour.
The point alluded to was caught by a few: Criticism without justification is purely subjective. The learning comes after the explanation, and when there is none forthcoming there’s no real value in the critique. Perhaps in some cases it might be useful to aggregate opinions for the sake of trend analysis, but most designers are rarely concerned about anything larger than the work at hand when soliciting feedback.
But the real point being made lies in what wasn’t said. A critique that attempts to justify or discredit work based on personal preference for design choices is laughably narrow in focus. The question the critic effectively answers is “Do I like the way this site looks?”, which except in situations where that actually matters, is absolutely the wrong question for a successful critique to answer.
The question fails to take into account the design goals for the site. It doesn’t consider the processes which evolved the site to the completion point. It misses that multiple decisions were made throughout development that, for better or for worse, have changed the original ideas. It can’t possibly reflect the budget or working conditions.
(And it has absolutely no comprehension that the green was hand-picked by the CEO’s wife.)