--- a rant about using illustatration in articles --- I open article. I see am image of a skeleton staring at a tablets back. I am left to wonder what author m

--- a rant about using illustatration in articles --- I open article. I see am image of a skeleton staring at a tablets back. I am left to wonder what author meant by that metaphor. The text after image states that "a white walker id reading Wikipedia" but I can plainly see that its not a white walker, the tablet is turned away from him, and the styling of the site is paroding New York Times. After reading the article I still do not understand what this image is meant to communicate. And then I suddenly remember that alt text exist, and surely the text description would be useful to understand the intentions of the author. There isn't any alt description. And the bottom text is lying. As I stare at the image looking at the teeth fused and ages lines on the skull, I suddenly understand that I might be the only person who looked at the image for more than 2 seconds. Which is shite, because images are such a good way to communicate complex ideas simply or to illustrate a point. I shouldn't be expected to just skip it entirely. Yet all the time I spend trying to understand it was a time wasted. You don't have to put illustrations in, if you don't know what you want them to mean! You especially don't have to put illustrations that have "high effort" appearance to them, because people would assume that it MEANS to illustrate something! And if you choose to generate something, it doesn't sound as a bad idea to check if that image conveys what you want to convey. I love illustrations. I love pictures. There are great illustrations in my favorite manuals. It's saddening that people nowdays choose to add illustrations that create confusion, not even because better illustrations would be preferable, but because no illustration would be preferable to that.