In a related vein, the idea reminds me of a strain of computer graphics research known as "non-photorealistic rendering"[0], i.e. acknowledging that for some uses, building a full shading model and trying to mimic reality actually makes the image worse rather than better. Once you've made that realisation, you can design renderers that have flat shading or heavier outlines or any number of other features that make it look more "diagrammy". I guess that xkcd graphs (and napkinlaf) are arguably themselves instances of NPR.
This is also a problem in architecture. When a photorealistic render of a building is presented to a client the client assumes it will be built just like the render (beautiful sky and green trees included).
Whereas the public, upon being presented with a photorealistic render of a building, immediately go "sh, right, as if" and start imagining the car parks and advertising hoardings and ...
(cf the recent renders of "London's Garden Bridge" which were gently mocked for their "optimistic" view)
> i.e. acknowledging that for some uses, building a full shading model and trying to mimic reality actually makes the image worse rather than better.
Think all 3D computer games before, like, 2010. Part of me wishes they made this realization; the other reminds me that we wouldn't be where we are today without a decade of crappy-looking games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-photorealistic_rendering