Yes, the graph is misleading, but many textbooks and research papers have similar Arrhenius plots which do not show the true y-axis. The reason is that k varies very rapidly with T so that it is usually only convenient to study a small range of T, here 590-660 K. The true y-axis at x = 1/T = 0 corresponds to infinite T and is very far from the experimental range, or "way off the graph". If we insist on a graph which goes to x = 0, the measured points will cover only a small part of the graph which would make it hard to understand. (It would also have led to inaccurate determination of Ea in the days when slopes were determined manually with graph paper, although this is no longer true since slopes are now determined by linear regression with a spreadsheet such as Excel.)
So instead of replacing the graph, I will explain in the article that the left side of the graph is not in fact the y-intercept, and that ln A corresponds to the true y-intercept which must be calculated. Putting a // on the x-axis is also a good idea which I have seen in some textbooks, if someone has the software to re-draw the graph that way.