[dsacco]

This is a good point. I found the article's content disappointing, to be honest. I think it hit a bit of an uncanny valley - it was too shallow to be comprehensive for a technical math/computer science audience, but too deep (and emphasizing the wrong things) to cover the ground in a way that would be appropriate for a non-technical audience.

If I were to write an article like this, I would probably choose a more explicit audience from the outset, then cover either a depth-first or breadth-first approach to the subject. A breadth-first approach would be good for a non-technical audience: here are the general types of cryptosystems, here are the ones threatened by quantum computers, here are the ones that are not, here are the current proposals for post-quantum resistant cryptosystems.

On the other hand, were I writing for a technical audience I would assume an understanding of why quantum computers threaten classical cryptography (and why e.g. symmetric encryption is mostly safe), then take a deeper look at each of the post-quantum proposals.