The lines are far too long, it would certainly benefit from more leading, larger sizing would be nice, and a typeface with a larger x-height (times is so tiny), would greatly improve readability.
I taught myself to code (HTML, CSS, and a small amount of PHP — Wordpress) while I was doing a Graphic Design ND. I think the hardest part for me, like Audrey, was trying to understand what a lot of the terms mean and also the concepts behind them.
I distinctly remember following a basic HTML & CSS tutorial and not being able to work out how to get the CSS to style the HTML. The example code worked fine, but the relationship between the two wasn't explained so when I wrote my own it didn't work.
I only learned of semantics 12 months after starting with HTML + CSS. It would have made a massive difference if someone had pointed me to a beginners guide (online & free, of course) that explained the way the web was born and how HTML is a way of assigning meaning to a document.
I think a lot of the problem is the people writing the tutorials and resources for this kind of stuff want to teach people something, while the people looking for this stuff want to learn it. Perhaps this is why a lot of Google's results for these kind of things are forum threads and other discussions (usually filled with outdated or plain wrong information, I might add).
I guess the first reason that springs to mind is that spec work is of poor quality. Most designers - I can't speak for artists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shared a similar sentiment - look at products and think about how they could be improved. To see a company not only facilitating poor quality work, but for it to also be pleased with the result is rather... depressing, really.
Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things.
But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer".
A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.
Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross.
99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.
That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.