First, the article makes a claim about PDFs problems for the web, when read online, which is a lot less clickbait-y than "unfit for human consumption". On the

First, the article makes a claim about PDFs problems for the web, when read online, which is a lot less clickbait-y than "unfit for human consumption". On the technical claims: while I agree that PDFs are not ideal for many uses on the web, especially for current attention-span-of-a-fly web usage, they are great for things where I am willing to dedicate more time for an in depth look at the subject. For those cases the complaints that authors list about PDFs (linear access to information, lack of advanced navigation options, optimized for print (i.e., look best on a large monitor)) are not limiting and in fact beneficial. And some complaints (slow to load, stuffed with fluff, jarring user experience) are just as, if not more applicable to most of the web. My 2c -- work in R&D likely skews my preferences in the direction of paper as an ideal interface :)