I agree with the article. What the author doesn't answer is why we're seeing so many visually noisy tables. He seems to imply that designers don't know any better.
There are two different "modes" of looking at a table. One is just "superficially glancing" (like you look at a picture), the other is more like reading, because you look for some specific piece of information. When glancing at a table, the one with more colors and icons looks more pleasing, while plain text looks boring. But when reading the table to get information out of it, the "boring" one (if it's well done) is probably more efficient and a better experience.
And here is the problem: when presenting designs to stakeholders, 100% of stakeholders just glance at the table and always prefer the more colorful table with many icons — they don't realize that actual users, who need to get information from the table, would be better off with the "boring" table.
There are two different "modes" of looking at a table. One is just "superficially glancing" (like you look at a picture), the other is more like reading, because you look for some specific piece of information. When glancing at a table, the one with more colors and icons looks more pleasing, while plain text looks boring. But when reading the table to get information out of it, the "boring" one (if it's well done) is probably more efficient and a better experience.
And here is the problem: when presenting designs to stakeholders, 100% of stakeholders just glance at the table and always prefer the more colorful table with many icons — they don't realize that actual users, who need to get information from the table, would be better off with the "boring" table.