zlacker

>>jakela+(OP)
Every time I see animation discussed by designers, they're thinking about it in terms of polish and "delight", and then balancing those things with perceptual latency. It's not entirely incorrect, but a couple of minor nits:

1. Delight is overblown, in my opinion. I think most of the people truly delighted by fancy animation are just other designers.

2. It's more useful to think about state when deciding when to animate. Could the user have trouble perceiving the change in state that just occurred? If so, then use an animation to help them visualize what happened. I believe this is the primary reason to use an animation - all others are vanity.

>>daniel+Vn
> 1. Delight is overblown, in my opinion

I might delight in seeing an animation the first three times, after that I want it off. Don't add extra latency to my process.

>>xnx+Hw
The author made that point, in considering frequency of use as a criteria for whether to use an animation or not.

>>atheno+lx
Frequency often depends on individual use case, though. In an actual application, there are few elements where you can safely exclude the possibility that someone will use the element frequently.