Actually, in this particular case, I'd argue that this is incredibly relevant: Preacher preaches against UX sin. Commits UX sin with a non-zooming harlot.
Absolutely. Meta comments are often more important than the article they comment on, especially when they place the worthiness of an article in proper context.
It's not a dumb rant against dropdowns: it's a well written piece with lots of examples and arguments that show which UX patterns are better than a dropdown for specific usecases. That's not preaching, it's explaining.
Finding a small flaw in his site and using that to downplay the quality of the article and the competence of the author is shortsighted, rude and unfair. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. Bragging about it on Hacker News doesn't help anyone.
Good point. I will say, though, that disabled zoom is a for more prevalent, annoying, and chronic problem than dropdowns.
It's orders of magnitude difference. Like, years to days. As in, maybe once or twice a year I get annoyed by a misplaced dropdown, whereas every couple of days I get annoyed by disabled zoom. One can make a solid critique of the wine at dinner but it's not irrelevant to point out the restaurant is on fire.
It isn't really a small flaw when your article about mobile faux pas doesn't work on mobile for many.
It's just people making a comment about that fact and other people agreeing or responding with an opinion. That discussion isn't stopping anyone from discussing anything else.
