[yumiris]

Complexity of storage/presentation formats can indeed compromise accessibility and longevity. However, trying to enforce plain text on everything can be detrimental to the quality and fidelity of information.

Of course, it very much depends on the context - technical documents may not need images as much as a travelling blog would. That's why it's important to use plain text as necessary, rather than always. The same applies to any format, including images and even videos. It's about balancing the usage of different formats, plain text included.

With this in mind, it's certainly recommended to start with plain text, but if plain text doesn't cut it, it's much more practical (and beneficial for the information) to just add an image. Ideally, one should always diversify how they store and present a piece of information, if they can afford to do so.

There is a tragic irony in sacrificing the potential fidelity of information in hopes of making it universally accessible.

[stjohnswarts]

I agree. I prefer html or md formatted "plain text" files. There is a reason books have different looking text and picture back hundreds and thousands of years. Plain text might be sufficient in a lot of cases but it's certainly not preferable in a lot of case. I do prefer html/md to any sort of binary format or proprietary one though for portability and universality.