Agree with all the good points made in the above posts. While rolling out on the runway, I would prefer not to hear specific instructions to turn off shorter than what had been planned for prior to landing. It is easy and safe to extend the rollout, but it introduces an increased potential for trouble to ask pilots to make an earlier turnoff while the aircraft is rolling at high speed. The time to ask for minimum time on the runway was well before touchdown. Sometimes, a prompt reply of "unable" from the pilot or crew may be called for. While most pilots are aware of the need to fit into traffic flow and do not wish to tie up the runway longer than necessary, risking or abusing the aircraft to comply with an untimely ATC instruction is clearly not appropriate. Even so, there are many incidents every year of aircraft running off taxiways at runway exits or hitting signage or lighting while attempting to rapidly clear a runway, particularly at night or during inclement weather/runway conditions. Instructions to exit at the next intersection should be treated as a "request" that will be complied with if consistent with safety and without placing undue demands on the aircraft or crew. It is a judgement call for the crew to make. We must not allow "pressure to please" to induce a mistake.
While receiving "progressive taxi instructions", "next left" or similar terminology may be in common use, but I still prefer "turn left at alfa, next intersection" or similar. While on the runway, "Exit left, next available" or "Next available left turn" or similar instruction seems least ambiguous to me. As has been pointed out, this is not the time to go "head down" to peruse the 10-9. I do find that memorizing the planned exit designation and the exits preceeding and following it is often helpful. At busy, multi-runway airports, Murphy's law dictates that your careful planning will guarantee a runway change at the last minute! Oh well, it was still a good exersize.
Best regards,
Westhawk