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
I had the suspicion that this was more of a problem of missing context than lacking meta linguistic abilities. A text can be translated as "what's the meaning of the words" and "what would a person/character say in an other language in the same situation", and it's not in the prompt which one the user wants, but only in their head.
So I asked my free chatGPT mentioning that it is for a book but it failed too:
> For a book, a natural English translation would be:
It even repeated the context. So it seems to me now that it indeed still lacks meta linguistic abilities. (I don't think that this proves anything meaningful about AI.)
In the original DK experiment they asked students after they had taken a test that where would their score end up compared to their classmates (which they had no knowledge of). Obviously they picked scores around the middle*
Which resulted in top students 'undervaluating themselves' and bottom students 'overestimating themselves'. Or under/overvaluating a random future variable that they don't have knowledge of, at least.
The original DK paper actually shows a positive correlation between the guesses and the test results: students are generally aware how they are among their peers, and smarter students guessed higher than studetns with less time to study on their hand.
This being said, the 'DK effect' is something people talk about, and it might exist, and it might be perceived by people. It's just that the original DK paper does not support it.
* another lesser talked problem with the DK paper is that people don't actually believe the answers they give, because the question is nonsensical.
If someone just takes a test, they won't think that "I'm sure I'll end up the 24% this time". Even if they are forced to anwser this question, even then they won't believe it, because that's not how random and future work. People are generally aware of about where they will perform (with positive correlation, in fact the original DK paper shows it) but they are not aware of results of specific, random future events, and they are not claiming that they know the results of specific, random future events, or believe it in their hearts.
DK paper tries to frame them as they were actually believing this, but they are not.
Can't we just get to the pop culture version of the DK effect by deduction?
It seems reasonable to assume that for some group of intellects they are not smart enough to know how not smart they are. There is no definite boundary where this effect is either on or off, therefore there are probably some gradations to this awareness as you climb up the intelligence ladder.
Another way of putting it: if dumb people had more insight they would cease to be dumb.
KDE is not a fork, nevertheless KDE was building on X11 heavily and now they are trying to kill it.
So while technically not the same story as if it was a direct fork of X11, practically they have the 'obligation' to support X11 indefinitely. KDE trying to kill X11 too is the same exact EEE that you mentioned as a sad story in regads of KHTML.
KDE is not obliged to support X11 any more than they're obliged to support JACK1 or sysvinit. They're all in maintenance mode, KDE couldn't embrace or extend them even if they wanted to.
KHTML is tragic because it had willing developers working for the public good. Jack1 and X11 are not tragic, because their developers were already drafting transition plans to depreciate their libraries.
> TIGIT (/ˈtɪdʒɪt/ TIJ-it;[5] also called T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains) is an immune receptor present on some T cells and natural killer cells (NK).
In animation (2d, 3d, stop motion) there are smear frames: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_frame
In this thesis you can find examples from different media, including games: https://theses.fh-hagenberg.at/system/files/pdf/Lendenfeld18...
I'm not aware of any normal software intentionally using nonsensical frames in their UI to aid perceiving motion.
reply