3 ms·

I think you are taking it a step too far. First of all, unlike film, we are not recording reality in any way, every pixel that appears on screen is there becaus

by jchw 4mo ago

I think you are taking it a step too far. First of all, unlike film, we are not recording reality in any way, every pixel that appears on screen is there because we put it there. I'd argue a closer parallel is a cartoon. And something like cartoon inbetweening is not an example of imperfect frames. These are in fact, perfect and even carefully crafted frames. It's one thing if the frame halfway through an animation looks a bit "funny", but is still completely logically correct. It is another if the intermediate state of the animation legitimately doesn't make any sense and is just the result of not really caring about what actually goes on during the animation. In that case I'd almost rather just not have the animation at all, or just have a simpler one.

iterateoften 4mo ago
Frame transitions in film do not in fact exist in reality. They are added in the editing room or through manipulation of the recording mechanism fyi.
fasterik 4mo ago
We're not recording reality, but we're trying to create convincing and aesthetically pleasing effects for brains that evolved in reality.
- jchw 4mo ago
  The point is that if a pixel is in a nonsensical place the only thing that is to blame for that is the code. It doesn't matter if it looks pleasing; there's no good reason for something to be wrong just because it looks acceptable.
- jancsika 4mo ago
  If you can't even guarantee internally consistent state then good luck communicating your "convincing and aesthetically pleasing effapt update && apt upgradeects" successfully.
jakelazaroff 4mo ago
We do this in cartoons as well. Check out this Spider-Verse animator breaking down a shot of Gwen drumming. [1] If you look at individual frames, there are all sorts of details that make no logical sense. In one frame, she actually has three hands! But it looks great if you see it in motion. [1] https://xcancel.com/hf_rosa/status/1089675426312552449 https://xcancel.com/hf_rosa/status/1089675426312552449
- jchw 4mo ago
  That is exactly what I'm talking about, though. This is not what is happening with buggy computer UI animations: these are not carefully crafted to look better in motion, they're actually only considered acceptable because it's kind of difficult to see the mistakes in the animation. Whereas cartoon animating, you could argue the details don't make logical sense, but that's only to someone who doesn't understand the principles of animation. You can't explain away glitchy weird UI transitions this way because they're pretty much universally not intentional. They're usually just taking the technical path of least resistance.
  - jakelazaroff 4mo ago
    No one is defending outright buggy animations. OP is just saying the idea that every frame should make logical sense on its own ignores how animation actually works (and they're correct).
  - fenomas 4mo ago
    That's not what TFA is about though. Look at the youtube example - it has two pieces of UI animating from from a start point to an end point, and the paths are such that they momentarily overlap. There's nothing buggy or janky about it in motion; TFA is just saying that if you ignore the motion and take a screenshot mid-transition it looks odd. Same complaint as what GP describes, and silly for the same reasons.
    - jchw 4mo ago
      It's what I personally took away from it. I was also someone who had the same feeling when I first heard Wayland's "every frame is perfect" mentality. I thought, "This is probably a good idea on multiple levels." I agree the YouTube example isn't the worst one, but also at the same time, I don't agree with you that there is nothing buggy or janky about it. https://tonsky.me/blog/every-frame-perfect/youtube@1x.png?t=1781346810 https://tonsky.me/blog/every-frame-perfect/youtube@1x.png?t=... There is no logical reason for there to be two copies of the video rendered at once. The video is literally resizing into position, while all of the UI elements shift around it. Why would there be more than one copy of the thing that is resizing? I will relent on only one thing: "If I take a screenshot of your app at any moment, it must make sense" is too strong of a statement on its own. The context that it is a screenshot of an animation is important, just like cartoon inbetween frames. However, I think if you're being generous with interpretation you can allow this to be implied.

by jchw 4mo ago

iterateoften 4mo ago

Frame transitions in film do not in fact exist in reality. They are added in the editing room or through manipulation of the recording mechanism fyi.

fasterik 4mo ago

We're not recording reality, but we're trying to create convincing and aesthetically pleasing effects for brains that evolved in reality.

jchw 4mo ago
The point is that if a pixel is in a nonsensical place the only thing that is to blame for that is the code. It doesn't matter if it looks pleasing; there's no good reason for something to be wrong just because it looks acceptable.
jancsika 4mo ago
If you can't even guarantee internally consistent state then good luck communicating your "convincing and aesthetically pleasing effapt update && apt upgradeects" successfully.

jakelazaroff 4mo ago

We do this in cartoons as well. Check out this Spider-Verse animator breaking down a shot of Gwen drumming. [1] If you look at individual frames, there are all sorts of details that make no logical sense. In one frame, she actually has three hands! But it looks great if you see it in motion. [1] https://xcancel.com/hf_rosa/status/1089675426312552449 https://xcancel.com/hf_rosa/status/1089675426312552449

jchw 4mo ago
That is exactly what I'm talking about, though. This is not what is happening with buggy computer UI animations: these are not carefully crafted to look better in motion, they're actually only considered acceptable because it's kind of difficult to see the mistakes in the animation. Whereas cartoon animating, you could argue the details don't make logical sense, but that's only to someone who doesn't understand the principles of animation. You can't explain away glitchy weird UI transitions this way because they're pretty much universally not intentional. They're usually just taking the technical path of least resistance.
- jakelazaroff 4mo ago
  No one is defending outright buggy animations. OP is just saying the idea that every frame should make logical sense on its own ignores how animation actually works (and they're correct).
- fenomas 4mo ago
  That's not what TFA is about though. Look at the youtube example - it has two pieces of UI animating from from a start point to an end point, and the paths are such that they momentarily overlap. There's nothing buggy or janky about it in motion; TFA is just saying that if you ignore the motion and take a screenshot mid-transition it looks odd. Same complaint as what GP describes, and silly for the same reasons.
  - jchw 4mo ago
    It's what I personally took away from it. I was also someone who had the same feeling when I first heard Wayland's "every frame is perfect" mentality. I thought, "This is probably a good idea on multiple levels." I agree the YouTube example isn't the worst one, but also at the same time, I don't agree with you that there is nothing buggy or janky about it. https://tonsky.me/blog/every-frame-perfect/youtube@1x.png?t=1781346810 https://tonsky.me/blog/every-frame-perfect/youtube@1x.png?t=... There is no logical reason for there to be two copies of the video rendered at once. The video is literally resizing into position, while all of the UI elements shift around it. Why would there be more than one copy of the thing that is resizing? I will relent on only one thing: "If I take a screenshot of your app at any moment, it must make sense" is too strong of a statement on its own. The context that it is a screenshot of an animation is important, just like cartoon inbetween frames. However, I think if you're being generous with interpretation you can allow this to be implied.