Hacker News Reader

Comment by eviks | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

>That wasn't the criterion, which was "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.

>So show your Kwin animation example

https://litter.catbox.moe/s6ahsjybdcfkvdi5.mp4

>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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com