Why then, people insist in using those light fonts? Yes, it looks "clean" and "modern" but they are too hard to read!

Because many people who design webpages aren’t very great when it comes to typography?

It’s just a bad idea to use those light fonts for anything but headlines or other kinds of large type. For the headline that light font is absolutely ok. For the body text it’s just embarrassing (especially since this is from Adobe).

I have to say, though, this blog is written by those at Adobe who develop new standards (for HTML/CSS/JS), so probably very technical people who are more often than not not very knowledgeable about design – that is to say, those involved here do not necessarily have a strong design focus (and neither do they necessarily have to have that).

Maybe the one who decided it has an Apple device with 'retina' screen? I was reading it on an rMBP and the font struck me as very pleasant, hence I couldn't understand the fuss here first. Helvetica Neue Light is quite popular on these newer Apple devices, it's good to know that it is a bad idea though.

I have been told that it looks "expensive".

The "bread font"... is that a design term? I like it, and it intuitively makes sense. I'm just wondering if that's a common term or if bread is interchangeable with potato, pasta or some other starchy food that fills you up.

I've definitely heard it before, though "body font" seems to be much more prevalent. It's probably a literal translation from a continental Germanic language, e.g. Dutch has "broodtekst" though the word refers to the actual body copy, not the font. German has "Bröttext".

Haha, no, body text is them common English expression. I just translated “Brotschrift” literally to English and somehow convinced myself that it’s an actual English expression.

Lets start using it. I'm going to start calling it the "bread font" anyway. Maybe it'll catch on ;)