Actually a lot of reviewers do measure the fps. And there is something to measure; the number of frames per second. On the other hand my comment centered on focus acquisition when taking a photo which is measured by the resulting photo of a moving object being in focus in the final image. Which, by the way, is pretty much all that matters in the end. Is my photo in sufficient focus for my needs? DxO does not help with that. Their process assumes focus while in the bulk of real world photography focus is the one thing you need to be able to rely on. Most of the aberrations measured by DxO are fixable in post. So, while DxO provides some comparable information that might help you make a decision in the rare instance that two lenses acquire focus equally well, you still need to know the ability of a lens to focus well before that point and in most cases the focusing ability of the lens will have already determined your choice. Unless you limit yourself to studio, lab, landscape and a little outdoor portrait photography.

What I meant by FPS is simply ... if it is 12 fps ... it's 12. Do we really need to have it lab tested?
I don't think DXO is trying to cover every single base, just the biggies....which it does.
AF is pretty simple. I don't need it to be examined. For the most part, everyone knows that SSM is fast, SSMII is a bit faster. Gear ... well, gear drive depends on your camera body, not the lens. I get fast autofocus with gear driven lenses from my A77, but quite a bit faster with the A77II ... it's downright torquey. But AF is easy ... if the lens is expensive, it probably has very fast autofucus. But again, a lot of it depends on your camera body.

I don't think DXO is trying to be a one-stop, end-all site. No one should decide on equipment by a single site.
Now I would like them to expand their lens and camera body cross-referencing ... that would definitely help.

Not all lens drive systems of the same type operate as well as others any more than the glass in similar lenses by different manufactures produces the same results. You rely on tests for things that produce relatively minor variations within similar levels of lenses but dismiss the ability of a lens to operate well with a a given body. That ability and quality of lens and body match is much more variable and has a greater impact on image quality than the relatively minor stuff measured by DxO. Again unless you restrict yourself to controlled environment photography. DxO is very useful for photography in highly predictable settings with little variation to challenge the the camera system. But as soon as you step into the world where most of us photograph, those numbers become creatively unimportant. How many photos have you had to cull due to bad focus compared to those you cut due to vignetting or chromatic aberration? Personally, I have NEVER deleted a photo due to vignetting or chromatic aberration. Not a single one. And that is fixable in post. Focus is not fixable.

I don't believe I dismissed the importance of lens matching to camera bodies. The best scenario (typically) is matching the brand lens to the same brand body.
I just think DXO gives the most pertinent information on the mechanics of lenses.
It's nice to know if vignetting is going to be one of those things you will constantly have to fix PP ... or not.
So, if you end up with a virtual tie between two lenses ... and vignetting or distortion is less with one...that's the one you investigate further.... imho.
Unless of course, you enjoy fixing images constantly.
I also have never lost an image to V or D .... but I do have to fix it sometimes.

What you seem to be suggesting is making a camera with a built in phone, rather than the other way around. This has already been done a couple of times. Most notable was the Samsung K-zoom, which came out a few years ago, and has since been abandoned. It looked, felt, and handled like a point and shoot camera, and had a 10x optical zoom. While it could have been a real winner, due to Samsung's experience making both phones and cameras, its reviews were mostly lukewarm. Its image quality was only marginally better than the competition, due to its use of plastic lenses, and its overall performance as a telephone, was mediocre at best. IMHO, it should be tried again, using better optics and firmware. Include an electronic viewfinder an it would be a real game changer.