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

Appreciating delight (for it's own sake) in software design I'd consider a core trait of (old-school?) Apple fans. E.g., lamenting the decline of whimsy in the post-Jobs era.

I don't know of a canonical piece that summarizes this idea, but it's referenced a bit in this short piece https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/12/05/festivitas

I think there's truth to it being relatively niche, appreciating delight that is, but it's certainly not confined just to designers. E.g., like I'm saying here, a core trait of Apple fans is appreciating these kinds of details.

>>robenk+1D
I should've been more specific. I was moreso referring to the trend of designers claiming they're adding delight, where in reality they're just muddying the experience with visual effects that might be striking, but lack any depth or improvement to the core experience.

I absolutely do believe that software can be delightful. Linear comes to mind as an example - there are lots of little nuances to their interactions and it just feels so good to use.