4 ms·
> to have huge, blown-up photos; and using understated interaction and animation techniques to enhance the reading experience. I probably scrolled past at leas
by wingerlang 12y ago
> to have huge, blown-up photos; and using understated interaction and animation techniques to enhance the reading experience.
I probably scrolled past at least 5 images, meaning I had to scroll up to look at the actual breakfast. On top of that the images below, of the kids, loaded faster. I don't have a bad connection. Very frustration article to read in my opinion.
- bildung 12y agoSame here. I appearently scrolled too fast, the images only faded in way too late, I could barely see the lower border fading in before it scrolled out of the view. I'm on a pretty fast machine, no notebook, and a fast connection, too. At first I thought it was a rendering error leaving half the page empty. I can't really grasp the purpose of the fade in effect anyway - the images are already loaded, so why not display them immediatly? This constant movement is distracts the eyes unnecessarily. edit: I was mistaken, they actually only load the images on demand. That explains the fade effect. Distracting nonetheless, perhaps the extra images should be loaded earlier, e.g. an extra window height below the current viewpoint?
- arjie 12y agoNot to be contrary for the sake of it, but maybe your connection isn't as good as you think it is. I'm using a laptop from 6 years ago and it loads on time, so it's not because some JS took ages to run.
- riffraff 12y agoI _think_ my pictures loaded on time, but since they animated when i was scrolling I thought maybe they hadn't loaded before so scrolled up anyway. It was frustrating in my modest experience.
- disputin 12y agoAgreed. Felt like '95. Look at the white space... wait... wait...