It’s interesting the amount of discussion this article has stimulated, in that sense, well done.
On the other hand it reveals how trapped people can become by the subjectivity of language devoid of context.
Ultimately isn’t it about making something that solves the problem given all constraints (technical, resource, market, user-specific, point in time, cultural, political)? Terms like “beautiful”, “simple”, “clean”, “ugly”, “messy”, and the worst of all “intuitive” are completely meaningless without consideration of the problem to be solved grounded in it’s constraints.
I believe the above is really what you’re trying to say.
In truth, most human problems have been solved already in some way. The solution may be shitty, (see healthcare industry) but there are solutions of a sort. The question for someone designing a new solution of any kind is “can I solve it in a way that is materially ‘better’ for enough users that the solution can continue to exist.” Better in this case meaning that the new solution, when compared to existing solutions, saves time, saves money, enhances the value of the outcome to the user, or enhances the users experience of using the solution.