The HOF, as it is, is fine. If you limit it to 75 players, then it creates multiple issues: How do you decide who was "better" between players from the 20s, 50s and 2000s? And what if you only end up with 1 player from the 60s or no players from the 1800s? Baseball still has the most exclusive HOF of all the major sports, in terms of percentage of overall players who are in the Hall. I've been to the Hall 4 times and never have I felt like I had to stop and read every plaque - I look for players I know and read their blurb, and maybe a few others that catch my eye. People can breeze through in an hour or spend 8 hours there if they want. That's the beauty (and intent) of it, IMO.
As far as making everything digital - the digital displays can be fun, but if you structure the whole HOF that way, it prevents people from going at their own pace. If there's a video clip you want to watch, you have to wait for it to restart after the people ahead of you are done viewing it, etc.
I really don't see why people feel the need to fix something that's not broken. Hall of Fames in any sport are for the best - and unless you only include like 10 players, there's always going to be a gap between the best in the HOF and the worst in the HOF. And no matter where you draw the line, there will always be a very slim margin between the worst HOFer and the best non-HOFer. That's not a flaw with the HOF - that's just how it is, regardless of how many you put in.