I think it can be fine if it's more of a marketing thing that I'm only going to view once and that doesn't have too much reading. Think of it like a promotional video that I can view at my own pace. But you have to have a good reason for it, cause there are lots of downsides.
And never use it for anything important, or that I might want to go back to multiple times.
This site is probably an example of a bad use case, cause it's the front page and I can't access the links without scrolling. Not to mention that it's broken on my device.
I think it can be nice when most of the content is static and there are a few flourish animations tied with scrolling. But IMHO any time any notable portion of content is being animated it is distracting at best or hurts the ability to read at worst.
I think there are people who like the aesthetic. I don’t think many put thought to whether they objectively like the concept of it.
Given the choice of a page with information readily available or a page where you have to scroll and it does whacky animations to present the information.. I don’t think many would choose that.
I'm really not a fan of the image sequence that loads in the background and the scrolling of the page is hijacked to move between the "animation" scrolling the image sequence. If anything, that should be a left/right scroll when the element is active or at least on element:hover. Stopping the expected page scroll to now start "animating" this media element until the end which then releases the scrolling back into the expected behavior is clearly designed by sociopaths and sadists.
I don't typically like it, but I believe that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has done some interesting infographic-style articles that did it well. Edit: Found some![0]
But as is usual with these things, people on HN are not the typical consumer of these things
Well, most website developers forget or have not checked the existence of (prefers-reduced-motion), which should disable all animations when a user preference is detected.
Which is why it is great that Governments are adopting design systems that discourage anything that is superfluous to the content people are looking for. There is a very high emphasis on accessibility and consistency because it makes sense.
Almost all the scroll-driven animations add no particular value. However, when it does, it does, just like every successful website, go back to being a tad boring and to the point, with precise information and bringing the Bottom Line Up Front.
When SVG animation was beginning to be widely supported by modern browsers (about 10+ years ago), a friend did a CSS-enabled SVG animation for a company’s website that explained “How it works” as the user scrolls the website. It worked, and the most asked question of “how it works” support ticket drops, thus increasing conversion and trust.
The website was for a hardware company in California that serves B2B customers with MIPS-based networks, video and security processors, etc.
I was going to ask you to provide source code but it turns that its hand crafted css / js / html
so I am probably going to create a hugo plugin and transform into this (though I would really really like it if somebody could write a dark mode , though I just tried dark reader and its also really nice , feels like magic , but I am going to create a dark button on the top , and change the width of red and maybe the color as well and it could be so cool.
Thanks a lot man
A lot of people are saying , why do you need this , I wouldn't over use it on every page , but I like this , I genuinely do though I also prefer simplicity.
I think that a guy should have two parts of a guide while still adhering to the same guide , maybe have the frontpage a little bit more scroll driven animations , heck three js if you want , but it shouldn't be on my face kind of animations
But keep the inner documentation smooth and simple , pure static html
The way the article is titled, I was expecting a virtual list or virtual scroll. Now that would be one of the most useful things to talk about. How to virtual scroll 10000 items with different heights. 1) When user can provide heights and 2) when everything has to be rendered on the fly
I don't really like it on "normal" websites, but for art projects it's great. For example, I recently came across https://www.aquarium.ru, a page dedicated to Aquarium, a Russian band
Super neat. Worth noting that some of these, e.g. Reverse-Scrolling Columns and Horizontal Scroll Section, kill the ability to use the macOS trackpad to swipe through history on Chrome.
If I'm scrolling up/down and the page is reacting by scrolling left/right, I want to throw my mouse at the screen. Maybe it makes sense if all you have is a scroll wheel, but I haven't had one of those in over a decade.
I hate these things but they're not made for you and me. They're made for some VP who pays the developer's salary.
Most VPs think the point of their website is to impress rather than to inform. I'm only impressed by websites that do inform, but I'm rarely the person who writes a check to the company with the impressive website. That person is ... another VP.
I feel like people are being overly critical of this work. When used sparingly, scrolling effects can add charm to marketing pages and portfolios, and I've seen some great uses on so called "explorable explanations" and other long form articles.
The main objective seems to be advocacy/evangelism on new browser animation APIs, which I welcome [1].
... I agree that the top mouse animation is, errr... a bit ugly, though :-).
The number of devs that see something isn't supported on FF and do something other than shrug their shoulders is probably me and one other person on the internet. Maybe. It could just be me.
I don't think that moves the needle much on if people care it doesn't work in FF.
> The number of devs that see something isn't supported on FF and do something other than shrug their shoulders is probably me and one other person on the internet. Maybe. It could just be me.
The number is likely extremely close to the number of Firefox users.
And yet you missed the self-deprecating humor in acknowledging FF users is such a small number, it's me and one other person. Did you think that was a literal number I believed to be true?
My (personally) humorous interpretation was that they were extending your joke by implying the only users using FF are devs and they are the ones that care.
If Firefox does release support, it shouldn’t be long before adoption is widespread:
> Since Mozilla throttles the rollout of a new version (incrementally upgrading the percentage of the population getting upgrades), it takes about four weeks for about 70% of clients to upgrade before stabilizing.
Unrelated but from that link "But why profiles? Why not just measure new user rate? Because we don't track users." is a weird thing to write after showing Monthly Active Users.
