On 13 March 2012 17:23, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Such animations need to be *FAST*. We're talking roughly 250ms max > (probably even less, but I'd have to play around with it to refresh my > memory). Most UI animations are slower than this (particularly on the web - > although many DVDs are *FAR* worse), and while it's good for first-time > users, for everyone else it just gets in the way of getting work done and > makes the experience feel sluggish. > > 2. On the web, animation means JS. But not everyone is using a browser with > that V8 engine or whatever it's called (the one that Chrome uses). And not > everyone is using a quad-core system with 64-bit software and 16GB or > whatever RAM, etc. like the well-supplied web developers are likely using. > So frequently this means very choppy, sluggish animations. And that's a much > worse UX than popping. This also gets in the way of being able to properly > handle #1 above, *fast* animations. > > 3. People have also reported that such UI animations can convey a subtle (or > even not-so-subtle) sense of being patronized. Especially if it's a slower > animation. I can definitely relate to this. > > (Of course, if people just make real applications instead of web apps, then > those problems would be trivially solvable.)
Slow animations are a problem, but CSS transition are helping make this less of an issue. And as long as you aren't trying to be too over-the-top then your normally fine. Sliding tends to be ok for most things, and fades are fast everywhere. I agree that slow animations are annoying though, I only do it for things that are loading anyway, so the slow animation doesn't actually slow down interaction. (I'm talking 1-2 second-long credit card transaction situations). -- James Miller
