as much as I hate to disagree but here I do so
I don't think this is a "great" article. To me it seems to take the worst of the worst and define it as "fundamental".
I totally agree that there ARE issues. Absolutely. And each project has its unique issues which can be grouped together for easier comprehension.
But now lets take the same approach on people. Every single person on this planet is better with certain things and worse with others. Now we group the worse things together. Say we have
six five groups now: input (seeing & hearing, senses in general); output (languages, lisping, bad teeth, mimic); effeciency (non-sprinter types, parkinson patients); interoperability (cultural background, language barrier); look&feel (ethnicity, dress-code).
Now I declare the human being is fundamentally flawed. (Yes others will agree with me on the result, but that would be a philosophical issue not a systematical).
I am not saying that the article is bad, but in my opinion it is too short to be "fundamental". The result might be correct but don't agree with the way we arrived at this result.
(I should have taken debate lessons while I was in South Carolina, then I wouldn't lack all the terms I was looking for. I can't quite express it nicely what I was trying to say.)