This was a great read unfortunately tainted by horrible graphics. If the publisher is reading this, please consider this feedback.
1. Animations are meant to distract by design, and putting them where someone is deeply engrossed in the article, disengages from whatever you're reading and breaks the flow.
2. Scrolling animations are fine for non-functional elements like intros, but I couldn't get all the folders open easily and have to fiddle around with the scroll to be able to see the artifacts.
3. Probably the worst of all, I was acutely aware of the main logo altering (someone took their name too seriously) constantly in the corner of my eye. This was so jarring, I found myself hurrying up to finish the article.
4. Twice my browser tab crashed on this page. While not strictly a design consideration, more moving parts means more chances of something breaking. Do you want to compromise the article because some graphics didn't work?
The article itself was really good. Very informative and interesting. I wanted to sit down and take it in leisurely, but the graphics were annoying to such an extent I found myself hurrying to finish it up.
But I do understand this can be a very polarizing opinion. There are probably people who absolutely loved the graphics and for whom it added to the experience. But I'm also sure there are people for whom it was nothing but a deterrent. The best approach in such a case is graceful degradation. Allow people who can't stand animations and effects to turn them off and gracefully degrade your page to retain all the functional aspects and still present your core content.
This was a great read unfortunately tainted by horrible graphics. If the publisher is reading this, please consider this feedback.
1. Animations are meant to distract by design, and putting them where someone is deeply engrossed in the article, disengages from whatever you're reading and breaks the flow.
2. Scrolling animations are fine for non-functional elements like intros, but I couldn't get all the folders open easily and have to fiddle around with the scroll to be able to see the artifacts.
3. Probably the worst of all, I was acutely aware of the main logo altering (someone took their name too seriously) constantly in the corner of my eye. This was so jarring, I found myself hurrying up to finish the article.
4. Twice my browser tab crashed on this page. While not strictly a design consideration, more moving parts means more chances of something breaking. Do you want to compromise the article because some graphics didn't work?
The article itself was really good. Very informative and interesting. I wanted to sit down and take it in leisurely, but the graphics were annoying to such an extent I found myself hurrying to finish it up.
But I do understand this can be a very polarizing opinion. There are probably people who absolutely loved the graphics and for whom it added to the experience. But I'm also sure there are people for whom it was nothing but a deterrent. The best approach in such a case is graceful degradation. Allow people who can't stand animations and effects to turn them off and gracefully degrade your page to retain all the functional aspects and still present your core content.
There's an article? I thought it was a big animation driving a counter and somehow that was a comment on ... indian statistics?
Reader mode on Firefox turned it into just text