The title is clickbait: the article is (mostly) about how PDFs are not suitable for reading on-screen. (Which is mostly true.) Further, the arguments the artic

The title is clickbait: the article is (mostly) about how PDFs are not suitable for reading on-screen. (Which is mostly true.) Further, the arguments the article makes are gibberish: "4. Stuffed with fluff. PDFs tend to lack real substance, compared to regular web pages. When you’re building out a web page, you can visibly see how long it’s getting and how far users will have to scroll to consume the content. Methods of structuring and formatting digital content such as chunking, using bullets, subheadlines, anchor links, and accordions help users efficiently skim and scan sections that may contain the answers they seek amid long-form copy. However, in PDFs, those techniques aren’t always used and content creators tend to favor quantity of content over quality and formatting. This leads to overwhelmingly long and inane PDFs." "PDFs tend to lack real substance, compared to regular web pages." Really? Really? That's the argument Jakob Nielsen is going with? HTML is magically better? "However, in PDFs, those techniques aren’t always used and content creators tend to favor quantity of content over quality and formatting." In HTML, those techniques aren't always used! They often aren't used. And HTML somehow enforces quality of content?