Please never use scroll-snap as is done on this demo page (unrelated to the soft-body physics). It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. It improves things in one or two scenarios, but at the cost of far more common great frustration. Scroll-snap is a really risky feature, very niche in its reasonable applications. This is definitely not a suitable place to use it.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.
Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
61–70 of 209 posts
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#62Please never use scroll-snap as is done on this demo page (unrelated to the soft-body physics). It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. It improves things in one or two scenarios, but at the cost of far more common great frustration. Scroll-snap is a really risky feature, very niche in its reasonable applications. This is definitely not a suitable place to use it.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#63Please never use scroll-snap as is done on this demo page (unrelated to the soft-body physics). It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. It improves things in one or two scenarios, but at the cost of far more common great frustration. Scroll-snap is a really risky feature, very niche in its reasonable applications. This is definitely not a suitable place to use it.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.
I am only being literal when I say this, but as someone who is actively keeping an eye out for this sort of thing (CSS frameworks, UI kits), I lost interest pretty immediately when I saw that and closed the tab immediately. Assuming the people who made this page also made the UI kit, it tells me their web design values run contrary to mine.
I don't even fall into one of the exceptional cases, and this was a very bad using-a-website experience for me.
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#64I dont get why people are so mad at this? Looks fun, will I ever use it? Probably not, but it looks fun
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#65Please never use scroll-snap as is done on this demo page (unrelated to the soft-body physics). It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. It improves things in one or two scenarios, but at the cost of far more common great frustration. Scroll-snap is a really risky feature, very niche in its reasonable applications. This is definitely not a suitable place to use it.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.
There is therefore an intrinsic physical link between the actions of my fingers, and the motion on the web page. My finger moves, and an immediate, proportional response is observed. This is an utterly base level of how most humans interact with the world. It is why using a mouse or trackpad came quite easy to many people (and why some can flick a mouse in a shooter, turn a precise 274.9 degrees, move up 14.2 degrees, and click on the head of an enemy player in fractions of a second with pinpoint accuracy). It is also why even a toddler can use a touchscreen; direct manipulation is inherently understandable to even a baby.
When I am turning in a screw by hand with a screwdriver, the feeling of the screws threads through the handle into my fingers, the immediate force feedback, the observable, feelable progress of the screw in or out of its screwhole, forms this same interface. Where human and tool meet, latency and unexpected behavior, especially if divorced from the input force, are undesirable qualities of a tool.
Scroll jacking is to a trackpad or a fine scroll wheel as turning a screwdriver handle by twisting a bungee cord is to using a screwdriver. It unhooks the immediate, direct feedback from the motion of my hand; its jarring, unpleasant, frustrating. On this page, I immediately put two fingers on the trackpad and moved them less than a centimeter, and didnt let go, and the entire screen cycled its view, as if I pressed a button "move to next item". Except I didn't (and why would I want that in the first place???), I just moved my fingers less than a centimeter. Nothing in the real world moves like that except for things less than a centimeter away from falling out of balance. And it feels the same. Precarious. A common human reaction to things moving out of proportion to our body is nausea!
I think a better question is, can you give an example of "why/how" this solves any actual problem someone would have had scrolling this website had it not used scroll snapping? Would the top comment have been "Boy I wish this site had used scroll snapping, it would have been more well done and enjoyable that way"?
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#66Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.
It's completely broken if you use it with a mouse that has a scrollwheel.
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#68Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's completely broken if you use it with a mouse that has a scrollwheel.
I had no problems moving one tick at a time with my mouse wheel.
Re: Jelly UI: Soft-body physics for native HTML form controls
#70Please never use scroll-snap as is done on this demo page (unrelated to the soft-body physics). It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. It improves things in one or two scenarios, but at the cost of far more common great frustration. Scroll-snap is a really risky feature, very niche in its reasonable applications. This is definitely not a suitable place to use it.
> It leads to an awful experience for a large fraction of users. can you give an example of why/how? I thought it was well done and enjoyable. Regular fast scroll was still as expected, and then the slower interactions felt like slide changes.