What`s interesting about this discussion from a philosophic perspective
is that there`s an undercurrent of thought about what constitutes
facts, skill, knowledge, and opinion.
One of the tragic consequences of political correctness, outcome-based
education, and modern-day relativism is the loss of separation between
objective and subjective knowledge. In the example of getting input on
the design of a wheel, the basic shape of a wheel isn`t up for
discussion. The nature of a wheel, based on the definitino of the word
itself, is that it`s circular. It isn`t any other shape.
A friend of mine reminded me of a quote by the famous Anonymous:
"Without a common dictionary you can`t play Scrabble." Language isn`t
subject to separate opinions and individual languages for each person
in a society. Otherwise we have no knowledge at all and no way to share
any kind of experience.
A Web site has a definition. It may be a complicated definition, and
include as part of its subsidiary concepts such things as code,
browsers, and programming, but it`s a definition nonetheless. *How* the
Web site is used or looks is ultimately a subjective evaluation.
Yet another sad aspect of modern thought is that when an evaluation and
judgement step one point into the subjective, the entire concept of
evaluation becomes "just an opinion."
Although it`s true that everyone has a right (and an obligation)
to form an opinion, there`s a world of difference between an educated
opinion and a casual utterance based on nothing at all. I think we`re
trying to restate the obvious when we say that a Web site critique
should have at its basis *some* level of thought and logical rationale.