At first, even with a little coding experience, I was very confused reading Stolley's article. However, by the end of all of the GitHub videos, it started to make a little sense. From what I'm understanding, lo-fi production technologies are the preferred method of coding (and such) if practicality is the goal. If aesthetics are the goal, then hi-fi technologies are probably the way to go. I have to agree with Stolley's fifth major point, as she says, "If a hi-fi element seems necessary, keep researching until you conclude that it isn't." In my opinion, people mainly use the web as a way to share things, whether it's with themselves (such as documents via Google Drive or via email), or with others (such as social media). If that is the goal, then why would anyone not want their content to be consistent across all devices/platforms?
Although, as a photographer (or, something like that), I've had many frustrating incidents of transferring files from one computer to the next, only to find out that the Adobe products on the new computer aren't compatible with the products on the old computer, therefore, leaving me unable to continue editing. While it is nice to have the features that Adobe products can provide via Photoshop and Lightroom, not every computer is meant to run such powerful tools, and not every computer has the same version of those tools. If the products were lo-fi, it would be much easier to transfer and edit the files across all systems. However, there would be a sacrifice of most of the features. While it would be nice having everything be lo-fi for simplicity and peace of mind, there needs to be a lot more research conducted on how to make all hi-fi features lo-fi accessible--if that makes sense.