> I believe your are confusing web pages with graphic design.
I'm not. I remember the times of Bulletin Board Systems you had to dial into and then the transition to the popularity of the web. It has always been about navigating information. Sometimes the information is art. Sometimes the information is the interactivity itself. Most of the time the information is text. Once people realized that packaging was important, just like a hardback book with a wonderful cover and table of contents versus a manuscript-like stack of impenetrable pages, it became a matter of business. Nobody says a book can't have pop-up cut-outs that unfold when you open a page, but whatever the quality of a book is, it can be measured.
What I'm saying is that, I can appreciate what this webpage is doing, but I also would not say that it is a fantastic example of web design.
> Also, one could make the argument that a beautiful design can inspire another developer to make something beautiful. API's are often pretty dull. I find this design to be delightful.
My complaints with it should be possible to fully resolve while maintaining every one of those qualities you like about it.
> BTW, you can always use shortcuts provided by your browser/OS. Tap in the header on mobile, press "Home" on Windoze, and Cmd+Up on Mac.
I am aware of that, but often people are navigating mostly with the mouse and requiring the user to move their hand away from the mouse isn't user friendly. There is a human in front of the machine. It isn't just about the capabilities of the machine. Proper design is about the complete stack, including the biological part of it.
I don't mind if other people like a page. My concern is that people take it as excellent design that should be replicated, including its faults. If someone reads these comments and appreciates that, maybe it will do some good.