Important but ignored specs

In comparing different phones and devices, most of use will admit to using spec sheets to work out which is best for us, to a fair extent. Companies know this and market using these all important numbers. The megapixel wars, "0.2 mm thinner", "3200 MaH battery", that kind of thing. All very useful in comparing specs.

One thing that sticks out is that there are specifications which, to my mind, are super important, but largely forgotten. If I asked which phone got me the best wifi reception, or had the best call quality, there's no easy way to compare. At best, a cursory sentence in the review of 'calls were crisp', and so on.

The only company I know that tried to market a better wifi reception is Microsoft with it's Surface. Dual Mimo antennae, and all that. I'm in the UK, and not having 4G yet, being able to tap into the various free wifi connections around my workplace for example is super useful; I'd appreciate a phone or a tablet which had a better signal.

I know stuff like this is mostly the same now because of integrated chipsets and so on but the iPhone 4 antennae problems demonstrated that phone engineering and design can play a huge part too.

Specs like these never seem to be tested, or even touched upon by reviewers, and yet it's be great to get an idea of how devices stack up against each other.