A bit of a weird way to structure this kind of article. Why spend multiple pages comparing different formats by compression % / "Quality Setting" and only after

A bit of a weird way to structure this kind of article. Why spend multiple pages comparing different formats by compression % / "Quality Setting" and only after 6 graphs start saying "oh by the way at 40% the AVIF image is 3x smaller than JPG". Only the last two charts in this article actually contain interesting information, the others are just comparing arbitrary numbers with each other (how each codec defines it's 0-100 "Quality Setting") Also JPEG-XL is kinda missing which is the main competitor of AVIF.