As far as design with a capital "D" -- the overall visual look and feel of the site -- what you're looking at is the default visual "theme" for Drupal, Garland. (With the notable addition of a tabloidy logo by Anthony Schultz).

On one level Garland is an unremarkable grid: 2 side columns flanking a much bigger one
down the middle. At the top: just enough room for a logo and some rudimentary
navigational icons. While we're looking up there, notice a very slight flourish: a
squared-off overlap where two site colors sort of blend together. That's it for the
filigree. Oh yeah, the site administrator can adjust the colors.

But Garland does the job as an info-crunching machine. The large column in the
middle, the "river of news," enables a steady stream of content that runs in reverse
chronological order, like a blog. The squared-off riverbanks on both sides can be
paved with blocks of percolating information. So Garland moves in a few
different directions; it's a nice blend of the dynamic and the static.

But Garland has no prestige. It's the design "theme" (to use Drupal terminology)
of beginners, and people who are planning to create a more sophisticated
theme for their site "one of these days".

The Web is littered with abandoned, half-built Garland-themed
sites. Many Garland sites have an almost visible layer of sad, real-life resignation -- an
acceptance of the half-baked nature of most initiatives.

Designers who work with ambitious, well-funded Drupal-users know that one priority, often unspoken, is that the site "not look like Drupal," i.e. not like Garland.

But Garland's simplicity also works, in a naive sort of way. Check out technology consultant Sharon Krossa's site. You see what I mean?

Web design guru Jacob Nielsen would approve.

Garland also shows up on the sites of multimedia geeks and search engine optimization consultants and software developers who don't have the time or inclination to make visual statements.

Another Garland plus, for anyone contemplating building a site: it will save you
from dealing with designers until you are good and ready.

This is not an insignificant advantage: when you start working with Drupal, you
eventually realize that you are not working with an inanimate software
program, you are working with a community... two communities actually: the databasey
PHP people, and the design people, who will "skin" your site with distinctive visual
"themes".

Except "skin" makes it sound too easy. Once you start talking to these designers,
you can get waaaaaay off track. You have to start thinking about image, and
attitude, and woozy, branding-type questions that are way over your head, unless
you're an ad guy or gal.

I agree with the Chinese Web developer's comment on a Drupal
message board: "There are many other themes, but always got problem."

Still, many Drupal users go to great lengths, and great expense, to disguise their
roots. They want to get off Garland, and fast.

But here's my view: it's not worth it. I embrace my commodity design status.

1. Besides, Garland has a proud heritage all its own, if you like a look that comes with side orders of attitude and context. Invented by Stefan Nagtegaal and Steven Wittens, Garland was meticulously crafted by designers who are not from San Francisco. It has also been battle tested (Check out the trailing stream of comments on these last two posts).
2. Besides 2, soon enough, when most people will be accessing Web sites on
   smart phones and mobile devices, Web design flourishes will be almost irrelevant, even annoying.
3. Besides 3, soon enough, maybe sooner, there will be a new default
   theme for Drupal. That's an upgrade I will seriously consider. But I can wait.

Or maybe I really do need a designer, and I just don't know it yet.