Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

davepagurek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#81

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

Jyaif wrote: post #68
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overshoot is important for scroll views. Without the bounce, there is no feedback if you have scrolled to the edge or not. Early Android lacked the bounce, and it would invariably lead to users scrolling again to be sure they had indeed scrolled to the edge of the view.

> Early Android lacked the bounce Early android had some visual feedback (a gradient that faded out) instead of the bounce, possibly because Apple owns a patent ( https://patents.google.com/patent/US7469381B2/en ). Current Android still does not use the bounce, and instead stretches the content, which works well enough on the high resolution screens that we have now.

Initial Android had scroll bars with no overshoot specific indication.

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#82

Post by Jensson »

ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #66
unconed wrote: post #3

Bouncy animations that overshoot just seem like a bad idea in general. The purpose of a UI animation is to guide the eye, but the bounce explicitly introduces a reversal of motion at the end before stopping. Easing functions are just very cargo culty. We've had the same basic set that dates from the Flash era. Now there's an Apple variant that's just a parametric version of the same idea, but it lacks guaranteed cont…

Overshoot is important for scroll views. Without the bounce, there is no feedback if you have scrolled to the edge or not. Early Android lacked the bounce, and it would invariably lead to users scrolling again to be sure they had indeed scrolled to the edge of the view.

Desktop doesn't have bounce and I prefer it that way. For mobile maybe bounce is more important since its less precise than a mouse, but point is that bounce is not obviously superior since on desktop the bounce just feels buggy rather than what you want.

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#83

Post by xwolfi »

socalgal2 wrote: post #41

Why does literally every single article on easing functions mention Penner? First off he didn’t invent them. Games had been using those functions since at least the 80s. Second, why only him and these functions? I don’t write: In JavaScript by Brendan Eich using Node.js by Ryan Dahl I installed a package using npm by Isaac Z. Schlueter called React by Jordan Walke and for the backend I used TJ Holowaychuk’s express.j…

Sir, this is a Wendy

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#84

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

Jensson wrote: post #82
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overshoot is important for scroll views. Without the bounce, there is no feedback if you have scrolled to the edge or not. Early Android lacked the bounce, and it would invariably lead to users scrolling again to be sure they had indeed scrolled to the edge of the view.

Desktop doesn't have bounce and I prefer it that way. For mobile maybe bounce is more important since its less precise than a mouse, but point is that bounce is not obviously superior since on desktop the bounce just feels buggy rather than what you want.

Desktop on Mac does if you swipe to scroll. It doesn't if you drag the scroll bar to scroll. On Windows, a scroll wheel doesn't bounce either. It doesn't need to when the scroll wheel itself provides physical feedback that you actually did something.

Touch interfaces tend to need some visual (or artificial haptic) feedback because touch itself is not enough.

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#85

Post by sfink »

shermantanktop wrote: post #23
bsimpson wrote: post #21

> maybe I can start by just writing up my rant, and maybe someone else will read this and find a Research Project in here and will make the time before me This is one of the things I find fascinating about Bret Victor. In the early 10s, he was giving a lot of really influential talks on creative coding. Someone asked him what his motivation was. He essentially said that he gives his ideas away, because he wants to li…

That runs counter to conventional wisdom about patents: very few ideas are worth protecting, because they have zero value until they have been built into something of value in the real world. And most builders are most passionate about their own ideas. An idea “gifted” from someone else may actually have negative value.

I think it's not about the original idea, it's when you want to build (or live) on top of that idea. Patents hinder building on them. Disclosing an idea can either squelch interest in it or ignite inspiration based on it, depending on the presentation and the recipient. I agree that builders are most passionate about their own ideas, but that's still the case if their idea is an application or extension of someone else's idea.

I agree that just taking an idea and implementing it as-is isn't very inspiring. Or at least, not until you actually do it -- since in the process, you'll invariably discover that the idea is incomplete or needs adaptation for your specific situation, and it turns out you have to come up with your own ideas for it to be a "true" manifestation of the original idea.

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#86

Post by sfink »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #73

Can anyone comment on easing functions vs constant on a longer period of time, would they be distinictive or seem the same on a long and smooth enough slope

Distinctive. Easing functions usually force the beginning and end to be noticeably different, and throughout the middle portion they're basically identical to constant velocity. The discontinuity at the start and stop are what easing functions are most concerned with.

In the limit, constant velocity still has the same discontinuity (infinite acceleration) at those points, and easing functions generally stick with the same constant-ish acceleration at those points. Easing makes it feel like the object has to get up to speed, and it takes about the same amount of time regardless of distance/overall time.

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#87

Post by sfink »

shermantanktop wrote: post #25
f33d5173 wrote: post #7

To me this article is ridiculous bcause the first thing I think of when I hear "easing function" is the css version of that concept, which seems to solve all the authors problems? The css easing functions are weirdly limited, because they consist of a single function that takes 4 parameters, then a bunch of specializations of that function. There are great websites on the internet for configuring those parametere tho…

I read the article as an unreasonably deep dive into something that few people care about as much as the author. I certainly don’t, but that’s what makes it good. That’s perfect for HN.

Not disagreeing, but you might be surprised at how widespread the interest in easing is. In my experience, easing is a major topic of debate whenever people are discussing the look and feel of animations.

Often people just argue over the proper parameters for the same old functions, but that's all they have available. Their arguments use lots of ambiguous human terminology like snappiness, surprise, anticipation, sluggishness, etc. that don't cleanly map to specific parameters.

Adjusting easing can produce dramatically different results in how we feel about something. It triggers our hindbrain. We want to pounce on the mouse, or block the incoming rock, or whatever, I guess? Try going in for a handshake a little faster or slower than usual and see what happens...

Re: I'm Unsatisfied with Easing Functions

#88

Post by Liftyee »

MITSardine wrote: post #34
Liftyee wrote: post #13

As an engineer I'm attracted towards the PID based one, but also wary of the amount of CPU cycles used just for a little animation. It seems like overkill, for some reason.

I don't imagine stepping through the ODE with finite differences at the same time step as drawing should be very expensive, essentially it's a handful of sums and products. In fact, using a closed form solution with an exponential is probably more expensive.

Ah, interesting. Serves me right for slacking in engineering mathematics classes. I think the method you're describing is one of those numerical methods approximations that I'm supposed to know about.
Post reply on HN