"Design" is the whole product, not just the visual aesthetic or a coat of paint on top of the app. When you look at design this way—as design of the whole rather than "which colors does it use"—then this debate changes.

From the article:

Slack’s design is not secret sauce. It’s one ingredient in a delicious recipe.

No. Slack's design is a cohesive, well-executed whole. And in that sense, design is precisely what makes Slack so successful. We shouldn't diminish it (and by extension, the design field as a whole) by finding alternate ways to say "yeah, but being pretty isn't everything." We know full well that design means more than a coat of paint.

It's sad, if not disturbing, to see a Senior Product Designer at such a prominent company go to such lengths to degrade his own profession by shaving "design" down to nothing more than veneer.

He makes some great points, but I certainly wasn't trying to imply that design was the only factor in Slack's success. I certainly touched on design, but most of what I talked about was copywriting, build quality, interaction, and the other ways that Slack set itself apart.

This article is absurd.

But here’s the thing — a lot of nicely designed products never take off or get noticed. Good design is not enough.

I don't see the point in this bit. Good design isn't enough. Great design often is. The point of Wilkinson’s article is that Slack's ability to "get a product out ahead of the pack" was their design aesthetic (and to a certain extent, other visual aspects of the product [copy, animation, etc.])

The list from the article is vacuous. There could be any number of factors that go into any specific product. That's not the point of anything anyone is saying. No one is saying design is or is not important to Slack. They're saying that design in this specific case was the reason Slack beat out competitors.

Stop degrading design.

Saying that a product succeeded because of its design feels scary, because it implies that a product might conversely not succeed because its design isn't up to par.

And maybe you don't want that pressure as a designer, so it's easier to say that design is just one element among many others.

I don't think we should let that scare us though. If MetaLab wants to make the case that Slack succeeded in large part because of its design (as far as I can tell they never said it succeeded only because of its design), more power to them.

I do agree that Stewart was in a very unique and favorable position to launch a product in this category. Marketing and execution are vital to the success of any startup. But imagine he approached the WSJ with an app that had the same enterprise dinosaur look and feel of '2013 HipChat', would Slack have had the same reception? (Food for thought).

Hats off to the team at Atlassian, their product has improved by leaps and bounds since the introduction of Slack. Take a stroll down memory lane via the web archive to see how much their design approach has changed in the last two years.

Design can easily be defended as the tipping point / secret sauce.

Very well said. I think it's also important to remember that it wasn't Slack that was tooting it's horn... it was the design agency that was hired by them to give it the sexy.

From that standpoint, of course the agency is going to toot IT'S horn and push the basic vision that "design = success"... it's in their best business interests.

I feel some of the detractors are losing sight of this. They are simply marketing their services... and are proud of them.

UI, UX, & Marketting have a lot to do with Slack's success i mean just look at it.. its just IRC + File Sharing.. none of the technology is new or revolutionary in any way.. its not even faster.. there is no metric on which slack is better than the completion in terms of technology. The only thing that works for slack is anyone who uses it instantly falls in love.. and thats what great designers do, they make people fall in love with their products.

Well said!