I wonder if there'll ever be a webpage submission on HN where 50% of the comments aren't just complaining about the presentation or the way it's been implemented.
It doesn’t normally happen by any means. It happened this time due to the nature of the submission, which makes it relevant: it’s about the “small web”, but has itself used techniques of the “big web” (and poorly implemented at that) that mesh very poorly with that goal. Ultimately, it is unfortunately an unusually poorly put-together website, which has (at least to this audience, which is more sensitive to such matters than most) undermined its otherwise interesting goal and purpose.
It's an award for sites that "embody the idea of a small, playful and heartfelt web", not for who can code the most minimal and efficient HTML. I don't know what these commenters are trying to demonstrate other than that they missed the point of this entirely well-meaning effort.
I think you have misunderstood their use of the word "small". It is not small in the sense of having a small file size, loading quickly, or eschewing the use of JavaScript frameworks, but "small" in the sense of being humble, independently created, small in scope, outside commercial activity.