Munroe's technique is a type of minimalism.
By drawing mostly in stick figures and simple forms, Munroe is giving you only what is needed to set the scene, similar to a theatrical production with minimal props, costumes, and sets. You get to use your imagination to fill in all the rest.
In the xkcd world, it doesn't particularly matter that Cueball has a simple circle for a head, with no facial features present, because Munroe's comedy is not primarily a visual type of comedy. The humor is found in the text, and in the situations he sets up, not in the facial expressions of the characters or in elaborately drawn backgrounds.
Which is not to say that the visuals don't matter. They certainly do. Looking at an xkcd strip is a lot different than reading the transcript on http://www.explainxkcd.com. But the way that they matter does not depend on them being drawn in a more elaborate style.
You might not enjoy it but if it's because of the art direction and art direction is what usually entertains you then maybe you shouldn't read it ? Don't try to believe you don't enjoy it because it's not up to your standards (or what you think is today's standard) when it really is not to your taste. Don't make it sound like it's an argument because it's not, it's a preference (which is as valuable and as good in its own right). FTR I upvoted you because I don't believe you should be downvoted because you badly defended your opinion.
e.g. https://xkcd.com/1190/ "Time"
https://xkcd.com/1110/ "Click and Drag"
https://xkcd.com/1416/ "Pixels"
Also, if you don't know about the alt text then you've been missing half the joke.
You are not as small a minority as you think you are. I talked to a lot of people who never cared about his comics because of the overly simplistic style. Some even see it as some sort of arrogance: "I'm so clever I can draw shit and people still love it." I don't agree, but I can understand why people think that.
He did experiment with different styles at the beginning, clearly he decided he would not waste time on pixels and instead put his efforts where his talent truly is, in the little nerdy things he had to say.
Not the goal. The word 'comic' does not imply it. It's like asking confusedly why your posts are not in haiku form.
> Theres not a huge difference between a bunch of stick figures with walls of text crammed into each frame and simple text prose.
They help delineate conversation, but you're right. There's not a big difference between those. Note that a lot of what he does is just text. (Also note that many of the comics are not just stick figures with text.)
But your implication that there should be a difference, I don't understand that. The format serves the contents well.
The constraint of using only a limited number of common words made it feel like I was reading someone's speech impediment.
You can't just take the most used words and hope for the best. It takes real effort to get something understandable.
Then we continue the de-evolution into a mix of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts.
Please forgive us, Mike Judge.
http://smile.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Databases-Mana-Takahashi...
Knowing the proper name of something is often less important than understanding how it works.
Now I think I've seen everything...
He IS "revisiting" high school, in a sense. Most people graduate high school and never look back. Munroe is looking back. The title did not say he would be a student.
My other worry is that any such textbooks would be so riddled with errors that it would be undeserving of Munroe's comics -- I got new math(s) textbooks in 4th and 5th grade, and my classmates and I often found errors in the answer key in the back. If the teacher was going off an answer key and had an incorrect answer, sometimes we'd band up and go up to the chalkboard to prove we were right (by showing our work on the board). If there was time after we might even conjecture about the error the textbook authors originally made to get the wrong answer in the back.
