As a person who does research and support researchers, I can't see the gap, sorry.
I understand some people don't know it's possible, and some don't care, but for any competent researcher, it's expected them to master the tools they use. This is esp. true for career researchers.
I'm not disputing that a competent computer user can do it. From the perspective of "this is what I would do if I was a scientist", you're totally correct.
But when you're writing guidelines for an entire field - as the article describes HGNC doing - you're catering to all researchers in that field: good, bad, and ugly. Plus technicians, editors, admins and anyone else that might handle the files. Given how hidden and unintuitive Excel's behaviour is here, I think what they're doing makes sense.
As a researcher you may have to learn how to carefully dig up skulls, raise rats, handle lasers, remember not to accidentally syringe yourself with viruses etc.
Getting cut by Excel seems like part of the job and at least is hopefully less life threatening than possibly blowing yourself up or giving yourself silicosis.
That said the problem with computers is that they're pervasive, they're a moving target and often it's a case of the blind leading the blind when it comes to research. And probably more and more research groups need dedicated computer technician resources who can centralize the required computer knowledge of keeping a research group running.
