First, I propose an alternative to "form follows function": form follows *intent*

Second, the following article is absolutely worth reading if you are a designer of any sort:

https://borism.medium.com/forget-fo...

I think you're being optimistic as to how able people are to translate intent to form

@atheist oh there is no doubt I'm being optimistic.

Consider: if you want the user to 1. Be able to accomplish a particular goal or task, 2. Experience a certain emotion, 3. Aim for enhancing some other concern (aesthetic, genre expectations, simplicity, etc)

What would you start with, the tool or the desired outcome?

You dont pick up a hammer and say let's chop some trees down. You decide to chop trees down and then you go find a chainsaw. (Probably a bad example).

Same principle with decisions in design. What is your intent? What is the user's intent?

And then you decide what layout, interactions, and the particular ui elements are best going to achieve that.

My canonical example is invincible bosses in games such as TLOU, or Alien Isolation. The designer intent is to inspire fear and cause the players to run.

Another is on some web pages where the page autofocuses input to the search box.

Or the feed on some social media, such as YT, the intent is to keep people watching.

In short, effective designs will have form that follows intent because otherwise it defeats the purpose of the design and elements in question, wouldn't you say?

I think the article interprets a whole lot more into the phrase than there really is

"Form follows function" => The design shouldn't stand in the way of functionality