Worse than the idea, the page removes the scroll bar, and activates some custom-made, super-slow smooth-scroll. (Which is the first thing I deactivate on a fresh Firefox install. I've never understood the appeal of smooth scroll on a desktop, where it makes scrolling with the mouse wheel a huge PITA...)
Edit: I just realized, it's a vertical carrousel, in its full glory with almost invisible next and prev buttons, and its 8x8 pixel navigation buttons. This summarizes pretty much everything that's wrong with modern web design.
> Which is the first thing I deactivate on a fresh Firefox install. I've never understood the appeal of smooth scroll on a desktop, where it makes scrolling with the mouse wheel a huge PITA
No it does not. It's MUCH better experience. Maybe firefox has a crappy implementation of it? I've been using smooth scroll for as long as I can remember (except on linux where it was slow) and it is really that much better. Jumping randomly and trying to figure out where you were? Better than naturally move the view? Really?
That being said, I agree with you that this site is broken. I can't use pg-up/down or home/end, yet the site acts as if it were a regular vertical page.
It's probably a subjective thing, like with font rendering using antialising/subpixel antialiasing. I personally can't stand "smooth" scrolling either, I'd describe it more as sluggish and blurry instead of snappy and sharp.
Basically. It's really well done, and in the right hands I'm sure could be incredibly useful for small hints (the on-hover use only), but it really concerns me for anyone with epilepsy for almost every other case...
My reading of the comments here are that most people are saying "Looks great, but why?"
We can't just venerate something because it's been "given to the people" - we need to give OS just as much critical treatment as closed source. Otherwise, the community becomes a sycophantic collection of yes men, and those outside of it can't treat the products in the movement seriously in comparison to commercial offerings.
Criticism in its constructive form is vital for improvement, regardless of the intentions of someone putting something out there.
While I usually agree with comments like these, I think it is key to point out that respect is earned, and that just because some code has been released it doesn't mean that we should be grateful for it being bestowed upon us.
Nowadays, when I release any code I tend to write a description of said code to illustrate how I intend it to be used. If I'm writing something that I believe shouldn't be used on a production project I will explicitly state this. I don't release a lot of code, but I've released a few snippets of untested, hacky code before that has found its way into production sites, and the last thing I want is for people to slate me just because I thought I'd show off what I had written.
This kind of thing happens all the time, almost monthly on Hacker News and Reddit. Everyone would probably be a lot happier if people were to add a basic disclaimer to their code to say "Hey, I've written this for a bit of fun. Don't use it on a user-facing site, okay?" to released code if they don't intend for it to be used on production sites by others. It may not be applicable in this case, but I reckon most cases where people bitch about how shitty some open source code or technique is would be solved if an author would explicitly state the use case for their code.
Absolutely, and people shouldn't be overly negative towards another persons work.
Decent manners towards other human beings aside, my main point is that a lot of the negative criticism we see towards released code and tools on communities like HN and Reddit would disappear if authors would explicitly state the intended use case for their work.
Are there any use cases where this might be practical? iOS has the app icons quaking in fear when you tap-hold on them, although the effect is somewhat different...
Come on people. This provides a way to provide an animation effect. There are many cases where animation can be used to provide feedback to help reinforce the result of an action. This could be used to provide such feedback .. there is far too much negativity on this page.
Its because we're seeing them all at once, and all in their shaking state. Normally these would be used sparsely and would only be shaking on certain actions.
I like it, even though I may be in the minority. I think this could be great for wizards/tutorials where you want to let the user explore but give them a little hint after some time. I really like UIs that explain themselves.
Of course, there is potential for abuse. But the same could be said for most of jQuery's animations or any other such library.
It shows attention to detail and finesse, you took one simple idea and went above and beyond making multiple implementations for different use cases, presented in the most exquisite and pleasant way.
I could see this being put to good use in interface tutorials, to subtly hint at what new users should be interacting with to progress, without resorting to lightboxes, tooltips and buttons.
When the first thought that came into my head was "DO NOT WANT!", I can guarantee some advertiser somewhere is going to find a way to make this even more irritating than it currently is.
And everyone wonders why I'm still using as my main browser one that doesn't support CSS animations... and I do have blink and marquee filtered out.
«mucho more information» sounds really bad. Information in Spanish is Información, which has female gender. Thus, you should better write «mucha more information».
