I see all these graphical abstracts in Elsevier papers along with instructions like “please use Times, Arial, Courier or Symbol font”. The intention behind these drawings is probably a “cut & paste template” for busy congress speakers. But there are strong and weak arguments against this practice.
The strong argument: It is my task as a speaker to carefully read an article, find out out strengths and weakness, and put the results into context. Just cut & paste a graphical abstract is inacceptable sloppiness.
And the weak argument: As drawn by lay people, most of these graphical abstracts are ugly, hard to understand and biased. They often steal other ideas and concepts, making art directors, illustrators, typesetter, typographer, and designer unemployed.
For a more in depth analysis see an essay by Nico Pitrelli...