I am self-diagnosed with aphantasia :), but I understood the desire of the article to simplify by exaggerating most prominent features necessary for a given context, similar to what cartoons do (though I implicitly assumed they simply meant a "caricature" as opposed to any "cartoon", though I haven't looked up if my understanding of the specifics matches actual definitions of those words). So definitely not a blind spot for those with aphantasia.
Still, the article does an extremely poor job of showing how that is done well, thus fails in getting the point across.
Even the cartoon of a person example sticks out to me as not amplifying a feature, because I don't see the jaw line as a feature in the original face at all. If anything, I see non-existence of that jaw line in the original photo. As such, it's a great model for the article: bad caricature, just like all the bad math examples below.
Still, the article does an extremely poor job of showing how that is done well, thus fails in getting the point across.
Even the cartoon of a person example sticks out to me as not amplifying a feature, because I don't see the jaw line as a feature in the original face at all. If anything, I see non-existence of that jaw line in the original photo. As such, it's a great model for the article: bad caricature, just like all the bad math examples below.