3 ms·

It's a cost optimization. How much engineer time does it take to shave 0.2 seconds off of an action that's got a 0.3s animated transition anyway? How much engin

by Swizec 11y ago

It's a cost optimization. How much engineer time does it take to shave 0.2 seconds off of an action that's got a 0.3s animated transition anyway? How much engineering does it take to care about the memory footprint of a website users are going to close in 5 minutes anyway? Most of the time, the answer is "Too much, not worth it". Some of the time the answer is "Let's do it". Knowing which situation you are in is key. Ideally, I should write code for readability and maintainability and let the compiler and runtime worry about optimizations.

kuschku 11y ago
And that’s when people start using script blockers and block many CSS features just to be able to load + display webpages in ping + 16ms.
yongjik 11y ago
No opinion about the rest of the argument, but a 300ms animated transition is looooooong. It will be noticed by basically everybody and annoy a good number of them. The only good reason I can think of is that you're somehow stuck with 300ms+ delay anyway, so you provide an animation so that the users don't think "WTF? I just clicked on it and why is nothing happening?" But if you can shave off 0.2 seconds then you can probably get rid of the animation altogether!
- Swizec 11y ago
  You'd be surprised by how many people think those 300ms animated transitions are a good thing. I think they're terrible. You'd also be surprised by how many people will completely misunderstand your UI and get confused by things popping around magically, if the transitions are too fast or inexistent. You have to build a UI/UX that your typical user will enjoy and be able to use, not a UI/UX that your nerdy friends are going to love. (unless they're your target users)
  - mrob 11y ago
    The only good UI animations I've seen were in Metacity (window manager for Gnome 2). It would move windows instantly, but also provide a transparent trail showing the path they would have taken if they had been animated traditionally. It let you continue working without delay if you knew what you were doing while still helping beginners.

by Swizec 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

And that’s when people start using script blockers and block many CSS features just to be able to load + display webpages in ping + 16ms.

yongjik 11y ago

No opinion about the rest of the argument, but a 300ms animated transition is looooooong. It will be noticed by basically everybody and annoy a good number of them. The only good reason I can think of is that you're somehow stuck with 300ms+ delay anyway, so you provide an animation so that the users don't think "WTF? I just clicked on it and why is nothing happening?" But if you can shave off 0.2 seconds then you can probably get rid of the animation altogether!

Swizec 11y ago
You'd be surprised by how many people think those 300ms animated transitions are a good thing. I think they're terrible. You'd also be surprised by how many people will completely misunderstand your UI and get confused by things popping around magically, if the transitions are too fast or inexistent. You have to build a UI/UX that your typical user will enjoy and be able to use, not a UI/UX that your nerdy friends are going to love. (unless they're your target users)
- mrob 11y ago
  The only good UI animations I've seen were in Metacity (window manager for Gnome 2). It would move windows instantly, but also provide a transparent trail showing the path they would have taken if they had been animated traditionally. It let you continue working without delay if you knew what you were doing while still helping beginners.