1. 1
  1. 3

    Asking as a user, please don’t. IME page transitions don’t solve any issue I’ve ever had as a user. As a developer they solve a big problem: giving corporate demo viewers a sense of involvement. As a user I take an action and my brain is primed to recognize change very quickly. The animation is more distracting and time wasting. As a demo viewer I am not taking an action myself so the display changing rapidly can feel disorienting. That’s not a great reason to make the experience worse for the user though.

    1. 1

      I have a strong feeling that with every new web “improvement” we are gradually re-implementing what was once possible with Flash (or Java applets)… And I hated sites that used Flash (especially since Flash always had issues on Linux), but at least the mess was contained in one place and the rest of the web document was usually still readable…

      Thus I’m afraid that with this new “feature” it will become yet another feature that would break old browsers or will push even more web sites (thus not web apps) into heavily relying on JavaScript just for some eye-candy.

      (And I’m not even touching on the battery usage issue of all these animations.)


      I appreciate – and I’m impressed by – what is possible today with plain HTML+CSS (thus without JavaScript), but perhaps we need a few years to fix the rough edges and make sure that these improvements actually permeate all the major browser engines (especially Firefox and WebKit).

      Although I think we are once again in a “best viewed with monopoly-browser-the-day” era, where either one gives up and only tests their sites with the latest Chrome (the rest be damned), or having a hard time figuring out which parts of CSS are actually portable to other engines / versions…

      (For example I don’t think many (1 in a thousand or few?) web-developers even think about how their web-site looks in browsers such as NetSurf or Lynx / w3m…)