Did you seriously complain about someone else saying "holy shit" and then follow it up by calling my comment "retarded"?

And no, it's not "retarded" to question someone's expertise when they're presenting themselves as an expert and making critical errors. Your opinions on fonts are at best suspect if you use Comic Sans for the content of your blog. Likewise, your opinions on interaction design are at best suspect if your blog is rendered as pixelated jpgs, fades in slowly, breaks middle click, and is laid out more like an Apple product page than a page intended to convey meaningful information.

I think you missed the point of my comment about calling it "retarded". The issue is not whether you're attacking my comment or the general thought or even me directly. It's that you are criticizing someone else for lowering the standard of conversation and then doing it yourself. This is the same kind of thing the author is being criticized for. If you want your advice taken seriously, you should probably follow it yourself.

> There's plenty of reasons why Comic Sans could end up on the page talking about fonts.

Joke? Okay, but if you made the entire page Comic Sans, then clearly the joke is more important than the content, so I see no reason to take the content seriously.

Fallback font? Then you still suck at choosing fonts, and your opinion is as useless as if you'd made it the primary.

Broken template? Did you not bother to look at the page after you published it? This seems like an unrealistic scenario.

> In this case, pixelated jpgs are probably the fasted way for him to publish the content

Expedience for the author at the expense of usability? Tell me again how this demonstrates any expertise in interaction design. Seems like the opposite.

> fading is likely inherited from the general site template

Undoubtedly. It's still a poor design from an interaction standpoint, both on this page specifically and on the site in general. It's designed to look pretty, which is fine, but it's bad for interaction, which is not fine.

> but I personally had absolutely no problem reading it.

I found much of it to be pixelated and fuzzy. I also found the layout to greatly detract from the reading experience. It looks like it's designed to sell a product by dazzling the user rather than educate the reader.

> The actual content is thoughtful and it makes sense.

I was not actually very impressed by the content. It looks like he drew the Twitter iPad client. I didn't see anything new or innovative, but there's plenty of other discussion here about that.

> So do tell me again why nitpicking on the text fading thing coupled with a holy shit drama is a good way to start the discussion.

Tell me why I should take an author seriously when he doesn't follow his own guidelines.

I'm sorry, I didn't really want for my remark to become the top comment.

I left it intentionally brief and shallow because I didn't want to give the impression that the sentiment expressed reflects my opinion of the entire article. I think the expletive helps convey that it was a unrefined first impression on that single aspect.

I do think that pointing out unnecessarily bad accessibility is a valid statement. Maybe I should have clarified that the content was entirely invisible without javascript enabled, but I am a bit disappointed that we're just stopping to see full-page flash applets masquerading as websites, and are immediately transitioning to reimplementing that same user-unfriendly approach in javascript.