4 ms·

From the source: auto: { enabled: true, interval: 3000 // HA HA! I HATE MY USERS!!! Especially the ones that aren't speed readers. }

arp242 6y ago
Top-notch trolling, 10/10 haha But yeah, carousels moving too fast is almost always an issue when I actually want to read the contents. It's one of those design patterns that just makes me want to close the website.
koheripbal 6y ago
I felt that detracted from the argument since it was really just demonstrating that a badly implemented carousel is bad - which isn't a strong argument against a well designed carousel.
- derefr 6y ago
  I don’t think there’s such a thing as a well-implemented carousel. Maybe in theory you could have one, if browsers could do eye-tracking, such that you could stop the carousel’s rotation as soon as the user looks at it. But without that, users are always going to land their eyes on the carousel and start reading an item in it some random interval after the carousel’s rotation timer last fired. (As, remember, users like to look away from the browser while pages load, and it takes them a random amount of time to look back.) Then, with this random "misalignment" of engagement times, the carousel content will inevitably transition out from under them. IMHO, this is exactly why users choose to not engage with content in carousels (according to the studies the author cited.) They know they’re going to not get to fully read whatever it is the carousel currently says; and they don’t know for sure how to stop the carousel from progressing; so they don’t bother with it.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    If there's no such thing as a well-implemented carousel, then the demonstration shouldn't have needed to use an obviously nerf'd carousel.
    - setr 6y ago
      Its easiest to point out an issue by first pushing it to the extreme, and then re-evaluating whether the middle-ground does not exhibit the flaw (in lighter fashion)

arp242 6y ago

Top-notch trolling, 10/10 haha But yeah, carousels moving too fast is almost always an issue when I actually want to read the contents. It's one of those design patterns that just makes me want to close the website.

koheripbal 6y ago

I felt that detracted from the argument since it was really just demonstrating that a badly implemented carousel is bad - which isn't a strong argument against a well designed carousel.

derefr 6y ago
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a well-implemented carousel. Maybe in theory you could have one, if browsers could do eye-tracking, such that you could stop the carousel’s rotation as soon as the user looks at it. But without that, users are always going to land their eyes on the carousel and start reading an item in it some random interval after the carousel’s rotation timer last fired. (As, remember, users like to look away from the browser while pages load, and it takes them a random amount of time to look back.) Then, with this random "misalignment" of engagement times, the carousel content will inevitably transition out from under them. IMHO, this is exactly why users choose to not engage with content in carousels (according to the studies the author cited.) They know they’re going to not get to fully read whatever it is the carousel currently says; and they don’t know for sure how to stop the carousel from progressing; so they don’t bother with it.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  If there's no such thing as a well-implemented carousel, then the demonstration shouldn't have needed to use an obviously nerf'd carousel.
  - setr 6y ago
    Its easiest to point out an issue by first pushing it to the extreme, and then re-evaluating whether the middle-ground does not exhibit the flaw (in lighter fashion)