5 ms·

<3 the scrolling implementation of this website. The browser scroll is as default, nothing is hijacked. It is just the background & images on webpage are update

<3 the scrolling implementation of this website. The browser scroll is as default, nothing is hijacked. It is just the background & images on webpage are updated as you scroll it creating those animations. You can use page down, space key, the scrollbar or whatever to scroll and it just works

jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago
It's still bad. Just let everything load and scroll like a normal plain webpage. All these gimmicks make it annoying to read.
- shultays 2y ago
  I think the visuals are subjective (and imo think they are fine). I was mostly talking about how "custom scroll" and animations that reacts to scrolling is implemented. If one wants to implement one, this is an OK way of doing it in my opinion
JohnMakin 2y ago
I don't. Please stop making sites in this style - it isn't easy to navigate, especially if you're disabled. I find it extremely obnoxious and immediately exit this style of webpage.
- Brajeshwar 2y ago
  I think NY Times started long back and this style was kinda "cool" that goes well with the narrative. Then, there is https://pudding.cool https://pudding.cool that does this pretty well. Now, many just copy and tries without a meaningful treatment and is just there - kinda not working-out in most cases. Tip: Try reading with Reader Mode.
  - layer8 2y ago
    Reader Mode doesn’t show any pictures here (Safari).
  - stilldavid 2y ago
    The NYT did kick this off with Snow Fall and it won a Pulitzer the following year. https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      In the NYT story, it makes much more sense (also the way it's implemented is far less offensive). It makes sense because it was trying to tell a story, and the slide show gives more emotional impact to it. That's cool! I still don't like it and would prefer just the story, but I see why it makes sense here. however, when you're trying to convey information, this style of page is offensively bad and I doubt is really doing you any favors - inline images and videos do the exact same thing you're trying to accomplish here without all the obnoxiousness.
      - metabagel 2y ago
        You haven't explained why it's "offensively bad". I feel like the tight integration of text and visual content does an excellent job of telling the story. There's no confused looking around for what goes with what. It's all tied together into a seamless narrative, sort of like television documentary style. It seems like the issue you have is with scrolling down, but that's an advantage, because it means you can go at your own pace.
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        I have in the grandparent comment - it’s not easily usable to many types of disabilities, chiefly - and it does nothing to augment the information it is trying to convey. this site also renders poorly, as others have mentioned. Just adds absolutely nothing to the page, so it is offensively bad in that I want to read what it says but cannot/will not.
        metabagel 2y ago
        I hear where you're coming from, and that's totally valid. For me, it does add value, and that's totally valid too.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Why isn't it easy to navigate? You only need to scroll down. You don't need to click any of the links in order to appreciate the basic content.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Do you understand disabilities exist? frame it in that light and it may make more sense. I’m not publicly disclosing my disabilities on this handle.
    - metabagel 2y ago
      Sorry, I had assumed you meant a physical disability, which probably wasn't a good assumption to make. (And I in no way say that in order to be rude. Most of us are limited in some way. I think you just find it difficult to process information in this format.) For what it's worth, you can probably get what you want here: https://ww2sunkenships.ca/ https://ww2sunkenships.ca/
    - sonofhans 2y ago
      I’ve done a lot of UX work with and for people with various disabilities. I can make a few guesses about aspects of this site which are difficult, but I don’t know about you personally. It could be visual difficulties making the low-contrast hard to read, or the overly-controlled layout making text-zooming difficult. Perhaps it’s poor source order screwing up a screen reader. Perhaps attention or anxiety issues make the constant motion too much to bear, or concentrate through. Each of these has a different solution, or type of solution. Calling out any of those problems might be useful feedback for the site authors, or for industry professionals here.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  It works quite poorly on my e-ink tablet as well. And on desktop I'd not realised how much of the site was disabled under my default uMatrix configuration. I know about "Snowfall" and other infographics. I'd much prefer straight text and static visualisations to the maximum extent possible.
layer8 2y ago
Not a good experience here, because I scroll more quickly than the background stuff takes time to load, and it’s not clear if something is broken, or when loading is complete for the current part. It’s messy and distracts from the actual contents, and has no apparent benefit for the reader, compared to a normal fixed document layout.
sorrythanks 2y ago
For the curious, this interaction is called "Scrollytelling". It's very enjoyable for some people. It makes me feel physically sick. But that's okay, I'm okay with the idea that not everything on the internet is aimed at me.
radicalbyte 2y ago
I came here to post the exact opposite. It's certainly the marmite of web design.
dxdm 2y ago
The presentation feels like watching a movie through a drinking straw, but yeah, I guess the "straw controls" are not hijacked and I can point the straw smoothly to places that haven't fully loaded yet. :]

jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago

It's still bad. Just let everything load and scroll like a normal plain webpage. All these gimmicks make it annoying to read.

shultays 2y ago
I think the visuals are subjective (and imo think they are fine). I was mostly talking about how "custom scroll" and animations that reacts to scrolling is implemented. If one wants to implement one, this is an OK way of doing it in my opinion

JohnMakin 2y ago

I don't. Please stop making sites in this style - it isn't easy to navigate, especially if you're disabled. I find it extremely obnoxious and immediately exit this style of webpage.

Brajeshwar 2y ago
I think NY Times started long back and this style was kinda "cool" that goes well with the narrative. Then, there is https://pudding.cool https://pudding.cool that does this pretty well. Now, many just copy and tries without a meaningful treatment and is just there - kinda not working-out in most cases. Tip: Try reading with Reader Mode.
- layer8 2y ago
  Reader Mode doesn’t show any pictures here (Safari).
- stilldavid 2y ago
  The NYT did kick this off with Snow Fall and it won a Pulitzer the following year. https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    In the NYT story, it makes much more sense (also the way it's implemented is far less offensive). It makes sense because it was trying to tell a story, and the slide show gives more emotional impact to it. That's cool! I still don't like it and would prefer just the story, but I see why it makes sense here. however, when you're trying to convey information, this style of page is offensively bad and I doubt is really doing you any favors - inline images and videos do the exact same thing you're trying to accomplish here without all the obnoxiousness.
    - metabagel 2y ago
      You haven't explained why it's "offensively bad". I feel like the tight integration of text and visual content does an excellent job of telling the story. There's no confused looking around for what goes with what. It's all tied together into a seamless narrative, sort of like television documentary style. It seems like the issue you have is with scrolling down, but that's an advantage, because it means you can go at your own pace.
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        I have in the grandparent comment - it’s not easily usable to many types of disabilities, chiefly - and it does nothing to augment the information it is trying to convey. this site also renders poorly, as others have mentioned. Just adds absolutely nothing to the page, so it is offensively bad in that I want to read what it says but cannot/will not.
        metabagel 2y ago
        I hear where you're coming from, and that's totally valid. For me, it does add value, and that's totally valid too.
metabagel 2y ago
Why isn't it easy to navigate? You only need to scroll down. You don't need to click any of the links in order to appreciate the basic content.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Do you understand disabilities exist? frame it in that light and it may make more sense. I’m not publicly disclosing my disabilities on this handle.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    Sorry, I had assumed you meant a physical disability, which probably wasn't a good assumption to make. (And I in no way say that in order to be rude. Most of us are limited in some way. I think you just find it difficult to process information in this format.) For what it's worth, you can probably get what you want here: https://ww2sunkenships.ca/ https://ww2sunkenships.ca/
  - sonofhans 2y ago
    I’ve done a lot of UX work with and for people with various disabilities. I can make a few guesses about aspects of this site which are difficult, but I don’t know about you personally. It could be visual difficulties making the low-contrast hard to read, or the overly-controlled layout making text-zooming difficult. Perhaps it’s poor source order screwing up a screen reader. Perhaps attention or anxiety issues make the constant motion too much to bear, or concentrate through. Each of these has a different solution, or type of solution. Calling out any of those problems might be useful feedback for the site authors, or for industry professionals here.
dredmorbius 2y ago
It works quite poorly on my e-ink tablet as well. And on desktop I'd not realised how much of the site was disabled under my default uMatrix configuration. I know about "Snowfall" and other infographics. I'd much prefer straight text and static visualisations to the maximum extent possible.

layer8 2y ago

Not a good experience here, because I scroll more quickly than the background stuff takes time to load, and it’s not clear if something is broken, or when loading is complete for the current part. It’s messy and distracts from the actual contents, and has no apparent benefit for the reader, compared to a normal fixed document layout.

sorrythanks 2y ago

For the curious, this interaction is called "Scrollytelling". It's very enjoyable for some people. It makes me feel physically sick. But that's okay, I'm okay with the idea that not everything on the internet is aimed at me.

radicalbyte 2y ago

I came here to post the exact opposite. It's certainly the marmite of web design.

dxdm 2y ago

The presentation feels like watching a movie through a drinking straw, but yeah, I guess the "straw controls" are not hijacked and I can point the straw smoothly to places that haven't fully loaded yet. :]