I think the first and the second reading is both contradictory and complementary to each other in talking about the relationship between functionality and aesthetics.
The first reading centers around the question “Do attractive objects work better”. The author argues that it is okay for things to be aesthetically appealing even when the appearance is not necessarily related to its functionality. But he also points out that for objects people use when they are under stress and need a series of actions, the functionality outweighs aesthetics. I think his argument is true and important to keep in mind when designing everyday objects, such as the teapot example in the article. With things like teapots, even if they are not functional at all, people can just enjoy it looking at it and have a bit of fun. And in many real life cases, such as phones and furnitures, appealing things actually work better with us; people more tend to buy and use objects that look better than just function well.
However, the second reading points out the case where the argument of the first author does not hold. In the case of Apollo and related softwares, full attention to functions and details is what matters. Aesthetics is not important at all, as any error in functionality could result in irreparable harm. In this case, what works well is more significant than what looks good.
Taken together, both readings shed light on a central principle in HCD, which is the balance between aesthetics and functionality. And I think what’s more important here is the balance should be based on the essential purpose of the design, which should be the driving force of all kinds of designs.