Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is the real tragedy of KDE, and it's been like this forever: technically, it's fantastic, but the design and polish are really lacking. Instead, all the people good at visual design are working on Gnome, which has technical underpinnings that are crap by comparison.
GNOME does terrible waste of screen real estate so if those "people good at visual design" are responsible for that, i'd rather them stay in GNOME instead of infecting other desktop environments.
1) Information dense
2) Looks good in screenshots
3) Information dense and easy to use
4) Information dense and easy to use and looks good in screenshots
An awful lot of designers stop at 2 because a 4 is way harder to achieve, yet a 2's pretty easy to sell (to "stakeholders"). The result is at least sometimes (sometimes) better than a 1. They may also drop a 3 to a 2, though, and it's really hard to later turn a 2 into a 3 (since it's "uglier", so harder to sell) and a 2 is so different in character from a 4 that it can't even really be considered progress toward it (a 3 might be).