6 ms·

maybe i'm just unsophisticated but what exactly is the point of it? all this work for basically nothing. and we wonder why our apps are bloated and need ridicul

by minusf 4y ago

maybe i'm just unsophisticated but what exactly is the point of it? all this work for basically nothing. and we wonder why our apps are bloated and need ridiculously overpowered hw.

Tempest1981 4y ago
It brings joy to many users. Not all, granted. The HW is already needed for games.
Grustaf 4y ago
It's probably done on the GPU, requiring almost no power at all. As far as 3d graphics goes, it's very very simple.
- Groxx 4y ago
  Yeah. Essentially no power and essentially no space was spent on that. It's barely more computationally complicated than sliding the page. There are lots of things to dislike about feature and size bloat, but this is among the worst possible examples.
ben_w 4y ago
There is something about reading on a screen which just isn't quite as "good" as reading on paper. I don't know what it is. Is it the reflectance/emission? Perhaps, Kindles are better than iPads; is it the resolution? Perhaps, retina iPads are better than pre/non-retina tablets; is it the tactile sensation? Perhaps, I find matt paper better than the gloss of many magazines, and the new Paperwhite is half way between on that score. Perhaps I'm just remembering good times from my childhood, and skeuomorphisms are a way to catch that. But no, a 3D animation like this is not the reason why apps are bloated. Other similar animations were smooth on a 450 MHz G3.
- plonk 4y ago
  Screens aren't precise and aren't natural. If you have good enough vision or a bad enough screen, you see that it's a bunch of squares that try to imitate shapes, and even have spaces between them. Also, the lighting looks fake. Even on good modern screens, there's a billboard feeling I can't ignore. I think that's your reflectance/emission point; it's not light reflecting on an object like literally everything you look at, it's an object blasting light at you trying to make it look real.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Even many low-end devices have better screens nowadays than to see pixels themselves. Also, I don’t get this “natural” point, reading itself is unnatural and not too healthy, not because of light reflection vs emission, but because focusing on one point for a long time, which is the same in both types of reading.
- BuckyBeaver 4y ago
  It's because paper doesn't EMIT light; it only reflects it. This simple fact was ignored for the last 30+ years of OS vendors pushing inverse color schemes on us. I see it as a vestige of the "desktop publishing" fad of the late '80s/early '90s, which sought to make the computer screen an analogy for a piece of paper. Or Apple's attempt to look "different." Now all of a sudden people finally realized that reading dark text off the surface of a glaring light bulb all day is a shitty way to work, and vendors have backpedaled clumsily to offering a hard-coded "dark mode." But we already had an even-better solution: Windows let users set up their own system-wide color scheme, from Windows 3.1 through XP or even Vista. Any properly-constructed application would inherit the system colors for various on-screen elements and guarantee legibility. If you wanted to change the look of all your applications, you had one central place to do it. And if, as a developer, you wanted to guarantee a color scheme, all you had to do was make sure you overrode both foreground and background colors. But Microsoft actually REMOVED that capability just in time for it to become desirable to more people than ever. Brilliant.
  - orbital-decay 4y ago
    >It's because paper doesn't EMIT light; it only reflects it. What's the difference? I've seen it repeated over and over and it never made any sense. If your screen is too bright compared to the environment, turn it down. The only practical difference seems to be uniformity - screens are much more uniform. No shadows, no dependency on the angle to the light source etc. Which is... great?
    - quesera 4y ago
      The first things that springs to my mind is that the spectrum of emitted light from an active display is different from that of reflected sunlight/artificial light off of paper made from pulp/linen/cotton. Active displays can be fatiguing for a variety of reasons, including brightness as you mention, but also the "unnatural" light spectrum. Also, of course, blue light is believed to affect your circadian rhythm, so can cause disturbances after sundown. Most ebook readers have adjustments for this though.
- Aaargh20318 4y ago
  > There is something about reading on a screen which just isn't quite as "good" as reading on paper. I don't know what it is. For me it’s the exact opposite. I read a lot, mostly on my Kindle Oasis (139 titles this year so far according to Kindle Insights) and on the very rare occasion I read a paper book I’m reminded how annoying reading paper books is. There are several issues with reading paper books: First, the physical format, long books are thick and unwieldy. There is no comfortable way to read in bed. You either read laying on your back, holding the book above your face, which is uncomfortable to hold and tires your arms. When laying on your side the fact that books fold in the middle is super annoying, if you open the book at a 90° angle you can only really read one page and you have to turn yourself after every page. Holding it open fully also isn’t comfortable. Next, there is the light issue. Paper only reflects light, meaning you always need an external light source. It’s much easier for me to immerse myself in a story reading in a dark room. Another issue with external light is that you have to orient yourself relative to the light source. Again, when reading in bed this is a problem if your light source is on your nightstand. If you turn to a different side you are lying in your own shadow. Last, there is the problem of logistics. As I said I go through a lot of books. If I had to buy these physically I would have run out of storage space years ago. Books would be piling up all over my apartment. Getting my hands on them in the first place would also be a problem. I can browse books online and find something I’m in the mood for right now and be reading it in 30 seconds instead if waiting days for delivery. I can binge through a series in days instead of weeks. No, I really don’t want to go back to dead tree books and I can’t believe people put up with the inconvenience when there is no longer a need to.
  - disconcision 4y ago
    i mostly agree... i think a lot of people haven't tried the more recent higher-end e-readers... i'd say both the oasis and the kobo forma are getting quite close to strict improvements on the trade paperback... i still love a good, well-worn <400 page mass-market paperback sometimes though, truly the greatest height of the dead-tree format. e-readers haven't seen dramatic technical improvement, but response times have gotten a lot faster, and manufacturers have pretty much all finally figured out physical buttons for page turning is the way to go. last time i read a trade paper, the weight and lighting issues dominated any of the pleasant tactility of paper. that said, i do miss the random-access characteristics of physical books: being able to have fingers between multiple pages to skip between sections and the ability to quickly visually binary-search for something. these seem solvable but require some master UI work
fnordpiglet 4y ago
The books underlying required even more work and they’re just a bunch of bytes that accomplish nothing. Some of them are even about something made up entirely and serve no purpose.
drewbeck 4y ago
Joy and delight are ultimately liabilities, and humans will be better off if we remove the need for them.
- IOT_Apprentice 4y ago
  I assume you are being sarcastic
- Gigachad 4y ago
  HN would have us eat soy paste from a tube because normal food is bloated.
  - yborg 4y ago
    Not sure if ironic, but this is literally true. Remember Soylent, the food of the SV übermensch? Yeah.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Features will be removed until morale improves.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
>all this work for basically nothing. and we wonder why our apps are bloated and need ridiculously overpowered hw. Attention to detail. Craftsmanship. Caring...
- neuralRiot 4y ago
  Exactly this. The new animation looks cheap and carelessly made. Attention to detail is what separates excellent from mediocre products.
jeromegv 4y ago
In this specific case, this worked on the first version of iBooks on the iPad 1 (which was famously underpowered)
jasamer 4y ago
This animation was super smooth on even the slowest iPad. The point of it is: they were going to do a skeuomorphic animation, and they put the effort in to do it right. It's a level of polish that I really appreciate, even though it isn't really necessary for anything.
- ElFitz 4y ago
  > even though it isn't really necessary for anything. It is one of the best, if not the best, way of letting users know what their action will lead to, and of letting them explore the range of available actions. By behaving similarly to a well-know interface, it simplifies discovery, lowers friction and reduces frustration. So when smartphones and touch interfaces were new to most people, behaviours such as this one were major, although nearly invisible, product features. Now? Yes, it mostly isn’t necessary to anything, but it was nice.

by minusf 4y ago

maybe i'm just unsophisticated but what exactly is the point of it? all this work for basically nothing. and we wonder why our apps are bloated and need ridiculously overpowered hw.

Tempest1981 4y ago

It brings joy to many users. Not all, granted. The HW is already needed for games.

Grustaf 4y ago

It's probably done on the GPU, requiring almost no power at all. As far as 3d graphics goes, it's very very simple.

Groxx 4y ago
Yeah. Essentially no power and essentially no space was spent on that. It's barely more computationally complicated than sliding the page. There are lots of things to dislike about feature and size bloat, but this is among the worst possible examples.

ben_w 4y ago

There is something about reading on a screen which just isn't quite as "good" as reading on paper. I don't know what it is. Is it the reflectance/emission? Perhaps, Kindles are better than iPads; is it the resolution? Perhaps, retina iPads are better than pre/non-retina tablets; is it the tactile sensation? Perhaps, I find matt paper better than the gloss of many magazines, and the new Paperwhite is half way between on that score. Perhaps I'm just remembering good times from my childhood, and skeuomorphisms are a way to catch that. But no, a 3D animation like this is not the reason why apps are bloated. Other similar animations were smooth on a 450 MHz G3.

plonk 4y ago
Screens aren't precise and aren't natural. If you have good enough vision or a bad enough screen, you see that it's a bunch of squares that try to imitate shapes, and even have spaces between them. Also, the lighting looks fake. Even on good modern screens, there's a billboard feeling I can't ignore. I think that's your reflectance/emission point; it's not light reflecting on an object like literally everything you look at, it's an object blasting light at you trying to make it look real.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Even many low-end devices have better screens nowadays than to see pixels themselves. Also, I don’t get this “natural” point, reading itself is unnatural and not too healthy, not because of light reflection vs emission, but because focusing on one point for a long time, which is the same in both types of reading.
BuckyBeaver 4y ago
It's because paper doesn't EMIT light; it only reflects it. This simple fact was ignored for the last 30+ years of OS vendors pushing inverse color schemes on us. I see it as a vestige of the "desktop publishing" fad of the late '80s/early '90s, which sought to make the computer screen an analogy for a piece of paper. Or Apple's attempt to look "different." Now all of a sudden people finally realized that reading dark text off the surface of a glaring light bulb all day is a shitty way to work, and vendors have backpedaled clumsily to offering a hard-coded "dark mode." But we already had an even-better solution: Windows let users set up their own system-wide color scheme, from Windows 3.1 through XP or even Vista. Any properly-constructed application would inherit the system colors for various on-screen elements and guarantee legibility. If you wanted to change the look of all your applications, you had one central place to do it. And if, as a developer, you wanted to guarantee a color scheme, all you had to do was make sure you overrode both foreground and background colors. But Microsoft actually REMOVED that capability just in time for it to become desirable to more people than ever. Brilliant.
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  >It's because paper doesn't EMIT light; it only reflects it. What's the difference? I've seen it repeated over and over and it never made any sense. If your screen is too bright compared to the environment, turn it down. The only practical difference seems to be uniformity - screens are much more uniform. No shadows, no dependency on the angle to the light source etc. Which is... great?
  - quesera 4y ago
    The first things that springs to my mind is that the spectrum of emitted light from an active display is different from that of reflected sunlight/artificial light off of paper made from pulp/linen/cotton. Active displays can be fatiguing for a variety of reasons, including brightness as you mention, but also the "unnatural" light spectrum. Also, of course, blue light is believed to affect your circadian rhythm, so can cause disturbances after sundown. Most ebook readers have adjustments for this though.
Aaargh20318 4y ago
> There is something about reading on a screen which just isn't quite as "good" as reading on paper. I don't know what it is. For me it’s the exact opposite. I read a lot, mostly on my Kindle Oasis (139 titles this year so far according to Kindle Insights) and on the very rare occasion I read a paper book I’m reminded how annoying reading paper books is. There are several issues with reading paper books: First, the physical format, long books are thick and unwieldy. There is no comfortable way to read in bed. You either read laying on your back, holding the book above your face, which is uncomfortable to hold and tires your arms. When laying on your side the fact that books fold in the middle is super annoying, if you open the book at a 90° angle you can only really read one page and you have to turn yourself after every page. Holding it open fully also isn’t comfortable. Next, there is the light issue. Paper only reflects light, meaning you always need an external light source. It’s much easier for me to immerse myself in a story reading in a dark room. Another issue with external light is that you have to orient yourself relative to the light source. Again, when reading in bed this is a problem if your light source is on your nightstand. If you turn to a different side you are lying in your own shadow. Last, there is the problem of logistics. As I said I go through a lot of books. If I had to buy these physically I would have run out of storage space years ago. Books would be piling up all over my apartment. Getting my hands on them in the first place would also be a problem. I can browse books online and find something I’m in the mood for right now and be reading it in 30 seconds instead if waiting days for delivery. I can binge through a series in days instead of weeks. No, I really don’t want to go back to dead tree books and I can’t believe people put up with the inconvenience when there is no longer a need to.
- disconcision 4y ago
  i mostly agree... i think a lot of people haven't tried the more recent higher-end e-readers... i'd say both the oasis and the kobo forma are getting quite close to strict improvements on the trade paperback... i still love a good, well-worn <400 page mass-market paperback sometimes though, truly the greatest height of the dead-tree format. e-readers haven't seen dramatic technical improvement, but response times have gotten a lot faster, and manufacturers have pretty much all finally figured out physical buttons for page turning is the way to go. last time i read a trade paper, the weight and lighting issues dominated any of the pleasant tactility of paper. that said, i do miss the random-access characteristics of physical books: being able to have fingers between multiple pages to skip between sections and the ability to quickly visually binary-search for something. these seem solvable but require some master UI work

fnordpiglet 4y ago

The books underlying required even more work and they’re just a bunch of bytes that accomplish nothing. Some of them are even about something made up entirely and serve no purpose.

drewbeck 4y ago

Joy and delight are ultimately liabilities, and humans will be better off if we remove the need for them.

IOT_Apprentice 4y ago
I assume you are being sarcastic
Gigachad 4y ago
HN would have us eat soy paste from a tube because normal food is bloated.
- yborg 4y ago
  Not sure if ironic, but this is literally true. Remember Soylent, the food of the SV übermensch? Yeah.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Features will be removed until morale improves.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

>all this work for basically nothing. and we wonder why our apps are bloated and need ridiculously overpowered hw. Attention to detail. Craftsmanship. Caring...

neuralRiot 4y ago
Exactly this. The new animation looks cheap and carelessly made. Attention to detail is what separates excellent from mediocre products.

jeromegv 4y ago

In this specific case, this worked on the first version of iBooks on the iPad 1 (which was famously underpowered)

jasamer 4y ago

This animation was super smooth on even the slowest iPad. The point of it is: they were going to do a skeuomorphic animation, and they put the effort in to do it right. It's a level of polish that I really appreciate, even though it isn't really necessary for anything.

ElFitz 4y ago
> even though it isn't really necessary for anything. It is one of the best, if not the best, way of letting users know what their action will lead to, and of letting them explore the range of available actions. By behaving similarly to a well-know interface, it simplifies discovery, lowers friction and reduces frustration. So when smartphones and touch interfaces were new to most people, behaviours such as this one were major, although nearly invisible, product features. Now? Yes, it mostly isn’t necessary to anything, but it was nice.