Some of these really sound nitpicky. The "Read More" links shorten a page so users can browse quickly through articles and see which ones they'd actually like t

Some of these really sound nitpicky. The "Read More" links shorten a page so users can browse quickly through articles and see which ones they'd actually like to read. Sure, some sites don't need it, but its ok on other sites. Now, the splitting into multiple pages like NYT or Tom's Hardware, yeah thats annoying as hell. If fonts are too small, your browser has a enlarge text function. Generally 8pt is small but OK and mostly readable. Any smaller (I doubt any site uses smaller) is a little un-userfriendly. “Let’s treat the mobile web as a separate entity.” -- OK I take issue with this one. Of course you have to treat it as a separate entity. Have you ever tried to view "real" google on a Pocket PC? Its too big. The mobile version makes it easier to see. Same goes for many sites. Mobile versions of sites ARE functional. “Let’s care about low bandwidth!” -- Well I used to think it wasn't important, until I realized that AOL dial up service actually still exists.... “Let’s read out loud the URL on TV.” -- Most people won't go google some unknown site on their own. If the TV tells them to visit the site though, theres a better chance they might. “Let’s tell everyone Firefox is the better browser.” -- Firefox 1 WAS more secure than IE6. Right now however, I think the difference between firefox and IE7 is negligible enough... so whatever. Overall, I think this article was written with too narrow of a scope.