That was an analogy, and about art and artistic effect.
What does it exploit in human vision??
Your example is even worse - it's a cost-driven degradation of quality
> smear frames helped to reduce production costs
> I'm not aware of any normal software
Ok, but that was the question to shift from some generic theory about how human vision isn't perfect and dynamic vs static to a practical example we can see and evaluate - just like the examples in the blog, where you can clearly see the issues both dynamically and statically
No, artists (of every animated media: 2d, 3d, stop motion, video game) intentionally put extra effort into creating ugly frames.
Not based on theory, but based on taste (artists' personal taste, or measured).
It's not a cost cutting method, not anymore. It actually requires extra effort, and it makes the product more expensive.
Maybe in animated media it is an acquired taste/coconut effect and not a way to exploit our visual system.
Either way this does not say much about whether youtube should have only sensible frames or not. But it points to the direction that (intentionally) broken, nonsensical frames in UI are worth exploring--they are everywhere in animated arts. As GP has said: "It's very possible".
And as the reply asked: provide at least one example
> Maybe in animated media it is an acquired taste/coconut effect and not a way to exploit our visual system.
So not relevant to the original theory? Also, that'd be an example of extra effort into ugly frames that originated as cost saving measures, not quality/artistic expression methods.
You can read why people prefer 24 fps movies instead of high-fps ones.
I'm quite puzzled by the article. Animations in software are transitions, it should not be perfect in UI sense, because it might look weird to the human eye in this case.
I'd prefer motion blur to something crisp. This is the case of file picker example.
You can also read why those people are misguided.
But instead of doing the irrelevant art analogies again, go back to the article and cite a specific principle that is violated by blur.
It has a list:
> Now, what does it mean in practice?
Also, blur doesn't even look weird statically! And again, provide at least one example where it looks weird to our eyes
> This is the case of file picker example.
You also don't seem to understand what that example shows, the "blur/crisp" is not at issue here, it's, for example, "textedit" jumping on top of "where".
Now explain what non-artistic human vision benefit there is to 2 words being drawn on top of one another in a UI transition instead of the first word disappearing completely before the second moves to its place.
>You also don't seem to understand what that example shows
I do understand, and this is exactly what I consider weird. Instead of repainting (in any way, even what is considered pleasant by you and Nikita), I'd prefer blur/mosaic/white window during the animation. Not the motion blur, but just not the actual contents of the window! This breaks "every frame is perfect", you can't make a meaningful screenshot of this transaction.
In KDE's Kwin, I configure windows resizung using crude stretching algorithm. This means I see non-proportionally weirdly stretched window several frames, then it repaints. On screenshots that looks really weird, while in reality this is quite ok.
> On screenshots that looks really weird, while in reality this is quite ok.
That wasn't the criterion, which was "the best"
> very possible that a "wrong" frame in isolation is the best looking one in a real-time context.
So show your Kwin animation example and explain how it's the best due to "human vision" compared to a transition without the weird stretches.
> I'd prefer blur/mosaic/white window during the animation
You mean blur where no content is visible/readable (that's different from the animation examples where text is visible, is moving, just not crisp)??? That's another reason you should just answer the initial question directly and provide a UI animation example supporting the theory instead of keeping arguing with nothing to show for it.
And again, what features of "the human visual system" does white window exploit that makes it the best?
Yes. Making perfect transition animations for the software is a very hard task, which is totally useless in my opinion — transitions shouldn't be made for screenshots, it should be made for humans to understand what have changed, how did click influence the UI.
>explain how it's the best due to "human vision" compared to a transition without the weird stretches.
Simple: Nikita's file picker example tries hard to repaint in time, and that looks very weird, because it's both janky and not how the window usually repaints.
And the latter is what the human eye and human brain are consider weird. If the animation does not attempt to present the contents during the animation, but instead only acts as a transition from state 1 to state 2 using smooth (as in constant-FPS) action, it does it job better, even if it does not preserve or even present the real contents during the animation.
The example of it could be seen on many websites which show the web page elements templates during loading (elements are positioned on their places but don't have real data yet).
>And again, what features of "the human visual system" does white window exploit that makes it the best?
If you present crispy sharp, high-fps picture to the user, the brain would look for any animation deficiencies, nitpicks.
If you just hide the contents in some way (blur, no repaints, no data), the brain just won't try to find anything weird.
> should be made for humans to understand what have changed, how did click influence the UI.
But that's exactly where you fail with bad transition - they make the understanding harder!
For example, in your video the file name text/icon is moving from the center to the left, but transition animation is showing it stretching horizontally instead, and nothing re the actual move! This is bad and serves no purpose, just creates visual noise and as though the icon is "floating" for a split second.
> If the animation does not attempt to present the contents during the animation
But your video does present content during the animation! It's just that this content doesn't illustrate the object moving, but an unrelated transformation.
So I just don't understand what you compare here and what you think is better.
> the brain would look for any animation deficiencies, nitpicks.
You still have not given a single example of the alternative where you've exploited the brain to not notice. By the way, white flash is a noticeable deficiency
For example?