Apparently the default in HTML is to have the window width fixed and let Ctrl-+ increase the font size AND reflow the text to fit in the same, fixed window width. If the window does fit on my screen, then I can just hit Ctrl-+ a few times and have fonts nicely large so that I can lean back and read the text. So, it takes some work in HTML and/or JavaScript to ruin this good default behavior.
The Web page I mentioned is only one; the Web is awash with people using tiny fonts and packing a single page with all sorts of stuff. With the layout the page has, to have the fonts large enough to read would need a screen, say, 4 feet wide. Any wider and, then, instead of scroll bars would have to walk side to side to read the screen.
Newspapers partially solved this problem long ago: Newspaper columns commonly have only about 40 characters per line. For the Web, 50-60 is about the upper limit. 96 characters per line is too many, way, Way too many, for newspapers, books, PDF files, Web pages, or anything else.
I'd think that by now Web sites would notice that 96 characters per line was too darned many and cut it back, permit Ctrl-+ to reflow the lines, etc.
So, I tried to make an issue of the 96 here. People with screens 4 feet wide won't agree with me.
With more magnification from my Web browser, there are still 96 characters per line so have to use the horizontal scroll bars twice on each line to read it.
So, since I was interested in the article, I selected all of the text, copied it to my system clipboard, pasted it into a new e-mail in my e-mail program that reflowed the lines and used a larger font, and then read some of the article.
With 96 characters per line, apparently the Web site is determined, feet locked deep in reinforced concrete, with iron-clad rigidity, to discourage as many readers as they can.
Ah, since the OP is about psychology, the 96 characters per line and the whole OP is really just a psychology experiment?
Curious that a Web site would want to work so hard to discourage readers.