4 ms·

You probably haven't noticed it before because when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect that can be used to draw your attention to particular elem

by jonas21 7mo ago

You probably haven't noticed it before because when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect that can be used to draw your attention to particular elements on the page. This site is intentionally doing it very poorly to make a point. Really, the takeaway should be don't do things poorly. But that's kind of obvious.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 7mo ago
> when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect I've seen it quite a lot, but apparently I've never seen it done well. It's a very annoying effect that chases me away from the site using it.
knorker 7mo ago
> when it's done well It's always awful. This site is exagerated in degree, but in kind it's merely on the scale of awful. Computers should not waste my time. Even if eyes are 10ms faster than the awful fade, if a million people see it, that's almost three hours of human life down the drain. And when scrolling fast, or far, it's not uncommon to have it waste a second of human time. A million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant". It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time. The web is already slow. No need to deliberately spend effort to make it even slower.
- stefanfisk 7mo ago
  Agree 100%! I’m a fast scroller and skimmer. Info scroll down and the text is not there I’ll just assume that the site is shot and close it. Ain’t nobody got 200ms to wait for a god damn fade in when there’s an infinite amount of sites out there to discover.
- arcfour 7mo ago
  I don't have a strong opinion either way on the effect, but I do have to say that I always find it amusing how fatalistic HN can sometimes be over the most minor cosmetic inconveniences, couching them as "wasting (large amounts of) humanity's time" and "disrespecting people" as if we're talking about something far more serious than little animations on a webpage. I mean, you might not like it, and that's fair and understandable, but is it really that big of a deal? Surely not.
  - knorker 7mo ago
    I mean, like the other commenter I would just close the page instead of enduring it. But yes, in fact if this page succeeds then it's wasting human life on things as productive as spam phone calls. People have solved the latter by simply not answering for unknown numbers. Not sure what you mean by "fatalistic". To the point where I'm not sure that's the word you mean. It's fatalistic as in fate. Maybe you mean morbid? Standing in line at the DMV is also all "counting flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all"? But even at the DMV it's (hopefully) not done maliciously. > cosmetic inconveniences Sometimes things suck. That's not remotely as frustrating as knowing that someone went out of their way to make your life worse. > is it really that big of a deal? Surely not. If we capped all laptop CPUs to 600MHz, would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe they did it because of the acoustic preference of not needing to spin the fans as much, and therefore you are not allowed faster CPUs?
    - arcfour 7mo ago
      They didn't go out of their way to make your life worse. They went out of their way to design something they thought you would like, but you didn't like it.
      - wtallis 7mo ago
        No, they went out of their way to design something they thought would impress in a demo to their management.
      - Telaneo 7mo ago
- MoonWalk 7mo ago
  "It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time." And this is what people have become way, WAY too tolerant of. The deliberate theft of customers' time. While this is obviously a very minor example, there are lots and lots of others that aren't.
- smohare 7mo ago
  [dead]
- slopinthebag 7mo ago
  > million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant". This is the wrong conclusion. The amount of work that can be accomplished summing one second from 38 million people is approximately zero - much different from stealing 1 day from 38 people or 1 hour from 912.
  - wtallis 7mo ago
    It doesn't matter whether useful economic work can be accomplished with savings of one second per person. Directly inflicting frustration one second at a time is still a bad thing. And obviously, those seconds can add up to meaningful time wasted even on an individual basis.
  - knorker 7mo ago
    > The amount of work that can be accomplished summing one second from 38 million people is approximately zero First of all, I said one million people, not 38 million people. But second (no pun intended), this waste of human life doesn't just aggregate across people, but also for multiple offenders one any one particular victim. A second on this website, a second on that site, a 10 second "loading" animation screen on a blog. It adds up. It adds up to all individual users actually wasting their life and productivity. Your implication that it's fine to willfully waste a second from a million people is either not understanding what "a million people" means, or a borderline psychopathic disregard for other people. You can also throw your trash on the ground, because really, is the city measurably worse off just because of you throwing just two candy wrappers in the park once a day? If someone accidentally drops trash, or makes a slow website because they don't have skill or time to make it faster, then that's a completely different matter.
marssaxman 7mo ago
Not doing it at all would be better still. It's really annoying.
troupo 7mo ago
Fade in in scroll will always be slower than the reading speed of a significant percentage of population. This becomes worse for people who just skim content, re-read the text, or want to quickly scroll to a specific place in text
- jonas21 7mo ago
  It can speed up the loading of the above-the-fold content because the images on the rest of the page can be loaded as the user scrolls closer to them.
  - knorker 7mo ago
    So you agree that for text, it should NEVER be used. And you are only arguing for lazy loading of images?
  - talim 7mo ago
    You can do this with just the 'loading' attribute on img elements and let the browser handle it without the gratuitous animations: <img loading="lazy" src="image.jpg" alt="..." />
SAI_Peregrinus 7mo ago
Yes, if you make things only slightly worse it's better than if you make them a lot worse. But neither is quite as good as not deliberately making things worse.

by jonas21 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

JohnFen 7mo ago

> when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect I've seen it quite a lot, but apparently I've never seen it done well. It's a very annoying effect that chases me away from the site using it.

knorker 7mo ago

> when it's done well It's always awful. This site is exagerated in degree, but in kind it's merely on the scale of awful. Computers should not waste my time. Even if eyes are 10ms faster than the awful fade, if a million people see it, that's almost three hours of human life down the drain. And when scrolling fast, or far, it's not uncommon to have it waste a second of human time. A million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant". It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time. The web is already slow. No need to deliberately spend effort to make it even slower.

stefanfisk 7mo ago
Agree 100%! I’m a fast scroller and skimmer. Info scroll down and the text is not there I’ll just assume that the site is shot and close it. Ain’t nobody got 200ms to wait for a god damn fade in when there’s an infinite amount of sites out there to discover.
arcfour 7mo ago
I don't have a strong opinion either way on the effect, but I do have to say that I always find it amusing how fatalistic HN can sometimes be over the most minor cosmetic inconveniences, couching them as "wasting (large amounts of) humanity's time" and "disrespecting people" as if we're talking about something far more serious than little animations on a webpage. I mean, you might not like it, and that's fair and understandable, but is it really that big of a deal? Surely not.
- knorker 7mo ago
  I mean, like the other commenter I would just close the page instead of enduring it. But yes, in fact if this page succeeds then it's wasting human life on things as productive as spam phone calls. People have solved the latter by simply not answering for unknown numbers. Not sure what you mean by "fatalistic". To the point where I'm not sure that's the word you mean. It's fatalistic as in fate. Maybe you mean morbid? Standing in line at the DMV is also all "counting flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all"? But even at the DMV it's (hopefully) not done maliciously. > cosmetic inconveniences Sometimes things suck. That's not remotely as frustrating as knowing that someone went out of their way to make your life worse. > is it really that big of a deal? Surely not. If we capped all laptop CPUs to 600MHz, would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe they did it because of the acoustic preference of not needing to spin the fans as much, and therefore you are not allowed faster CPUs?
  - arcfour 7mo ago
    They didn't go out of their way to make your life worse. They went out of their way to design something they thought you would like, but you didn't like it.
    - wtallis 7mo ago
      No, they went out of their way to design something they thought would impress in a demo to their management.
    - Telaneo 7mo ago
MoonWalk 7mo ago
"It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time." And this is what people have become way, WAY too tolerant of. The deliberate theft of customers' time. While this is obviously a very minor example, there are lots and lots of others that aren't.
smohare 7mo ago
[dead]
slopinthebag 7mo ago
> million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant". This is the wrong conclusion. The amount of work that can be accomplished summing one second from 38 million people is approximately zero - much different from stealing 1 day from 38 people or 1 hour from 912.
- wtallis 7mo ago
  It doesn't matter whether useful economic work can be accomplished with savings of one second per person. Directly inflicting frustration one second at a time is still a bad thing. And obviously, those seconds can add up to meaningful time wasted even on an individual basis.
- knorker 7mo ago
  > The amount of work that can be accomplished summing one second from 38 million people is approximately zero First of all, I said one million people, not 38 million people. But second (no pun intended), this waste of human life doesn't just aggregate across people, but also for multiple offenders one any one particular victim. A second on this website, a second on that site, a 10 second "loading" animation screen on a blog. It adds up. It adds up to all individual users actually wasting their life and productivity. Your implication that it's fine to willfully waste a second from a million people is either not understanding what "a million people" means, or a borderline psychopathic disregard for other people. You can also throw your trash on the ground, because really, is the city measurably worse off just because of you throwing just two candy wrappers in the park once a day? If someone accidentally drops trash, or makes a slow website because they don't have skill or time to make it faster, then that's a completely different matter.

marssaxman 7mo ago

Not doing it at all would be better still. It's really annoying.

troupo 7mo ago

Fade in in scroll will always be slower than the reading speed of a significant percentage of population. This becomes worse for people who just skim content, re-read the text, or want to quickly scroll to a specific place in text

jonas21 7mo ago
It can speed up the loading of the above-the-fold content because the images on the rest of the page can be loaded as the user scrolls closer to them.
- knorker 7mo ago
  So you agree that for text, it should NEVER be used. And you are only arguing for lazy loading of images?
- talim 7mo ago
  You can do this with just the 'loading' attribute on img elements and let the browser handle it without the gratuitous animations: <img loading="lazy" src="image.jpg" alt="..." />

SAI_Peregrinus 7mo ago

Yes, if you make things only slightly worse it's better than if you make them a lot worse. But neither is quite as good as not deliberately making things worse.