Agreed, the one thing I really think Simon [1] got right about visuals is the information they relay. Seeing a box diagram is one thing, e.g. boxes, arrows, names of tech (omg, @see AWS diagrams - they're really unexpressive deployment diagrams).
Compare that to a C4 Landscape or Context diagram - and its just night and day - so much more meaningful information and the ability to express not just structure, but to provide hints at data flows, actors, and externalities. In the end, I've found the most value for C4 in communicating architecture to upper management and new hires. These diagrams really make more sense than boxes and lines.
For arc42 I find the document content really appealing - its like engineering thinking. There is no standard template/model for design docs, perhaps this could start a baseline or trend to do something similar. I do still prefer Structural and Behavioral classifications.
Compare that to a C4 Landscape or Context diagram - and its just night and day - so much more meaningful information and the ability to express not just structure, but to provide hints at data flows, actors, and externalities. In the end, I've found the most value for C4 in communicating architecture to upper management and new hires. These diagrams really make more sense than boxes and lines.
For arc42 I find the document content really appealing - its like engineering thinking. There is no standard template/model for design docs, perhaps this could start a baseline or trend to do something similar. I do still prefer Structural and Behavioral classifications.
[1] Simon Brown, creator of C4 https://simonbrown.je/