Some of what you're describing is very important for users, like accessibilities issues, but not every general solution makes sense for every audience. That's t

Some of what you're describing is very important for users, like accessibilities issues, but not every general solution makes sense for every audience. That's the essence of user-centered design: a ruthless focus on optimizing for particular customer needs. You're not wrong that the site could use an information hierarchy pass—items like "A Message From Warren E. Buffett" are clearly more important than "Berkshire Activewear," for example—but when you're designing for an audience that knows exactly what they want, the best job you can do is to get them there with no frills. Real design is about solving problems for users, and an ugly list of links can do that if the links are right for that user base. In fact, I'd hope the designer spent the bulk of their time figuring out exactly what the right links are. That's 80% of the solution in this case. Better visual hierarchy, better typography and color, navigational elements to help users go back or discover different aspects of the site–the rest are accessories to the design. So, you're not wrong in your design criticism, but it's important to know what decisions will make the most impact for the users you're designing for and which are less important. For Berkshire Hathaway's target customer, this website may actually meet their needs perfectly fine. Edit: One note: the author of this article does NOT provide any evidence that this solution actually is the right one for that customer base. I wish they did, because I suspect it's actually pretty close to what will do the best job for their users, but the author assumes it's right based primarily on Berkshire Hathaway's success.