> I do accept that a not insignificant segment of HN users would much prefer a man-page-like display, all-text, no graphics, no css, no javascript-- even for a

> I do accept that a not insignificant segment of HN users would much prefer a man-page-like display, all-text, no graphics, no css, no javascript-- even for a page about visualizations! I like your glass-half-full positive take, but I’m not sure this is accurate; most posts on anything graphical that link to a github page have lots and lots of complaints about the lack of screenshots or examples. People overwhelmingly like pictures, especially on pages about viz, and parent wasn’t at all suggesting or implying not to use a picture, but maybe implicitly to use a better & more relevant picture. The question here is whether the periodic table metaphor offers anything of value to a collection of viz examples, or if it actually confuses the viewer by suggesting or implying some kind of meaning or organization when there is none. There’s not a small amount of irony in using a bad metaphor for visualizing something in an article that is specifically discussing how to use good metaphors for visualization, right?