How should you know whether it's about accessibility? The `prefers-reduced-motion` feature is explicitly[0] intended to accommodate people with vestibular motion disorders, which are common above age 40.[1]
If it's really bad, couldn't they apply userstyles that disable all animation with `!important`? `prefers-*` settings seem somewhat optional, best-effort, based on their name.
This feels like back in the 90s with those GIF-laden scrolling text webpages. I can't fathom what goes into the mind of a designer creating all this nonsense for what basically is a table report. Does anyone in their right mind expect people would be more attracted by banners frolicking around?
These blog posts used to be really good in comparing different clouds; I'm not sure why they decided that this was the optimal way to display this information.
I have Windows zoomed in at 125% and at my 1080p height screen some content boxes don't even fit my full view height. Thankfully the full report is direct linked here.
Comments
This blog post is literally unreadable with animations flying around covering up content, is that by design?
It also ignores the "prefers-reduced-motion" CSS Media feature flag :(
Dang! I didn't know this was a thing! Thanks!!
so? this isnt about accessibility its about preference. i prefer white backgrounds but im not sad when a site author chooses pink.
How should you know whether it's about accessibility? The `prefers-reduced-motion` feature is explicitly[0] intended to accommodate people with vestibular motion disorders, which are common above age 40.[1]
[0]: https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-5/#prefers-reduced-mot...
[1]: https://vestibular.org/article/what-is-vestibular/about-vest...
If it's really bad, couldn't they apply userstyles that disable all animation with `!important`? `prefers-*` settings seem somewhat optional, best-effort, based on their name.
Sure, please write it, ship it, and then support my 8+ aging family members who need to use it.
Or just follow the spec.
This feels like back in the 90s with those GIF-laden scrolling text webpages. I can't fathom what goes into the mind of a designer creating all this nonsense for what basically is a table report. Does anyone in their right mind expect people would be more attracted by banners frolicking around?
Don't underestimate the damage an overly eager and naive developer can do.
Or, (maybe more likely in this case?) a CMS author who's been given a little bit too much power?
Probably, they want you to download their report which requires a work email nad personal details.
The website has been updated to resolve some of the animation issues - is it better now?
These blog posts used to be really good in comparing different clouds; I'm not sure why they decided that this was the optimal way to display this information.
The JavaScript console is your friend:
document.querySelectorAll('.aos-init').forEach(e => e.remove())
The above will remove all of those popups.
I have Windows zoomed in at 125% and at my 1080p height screen some content boxes don't even fit my full view height. Thankfully the full report is direct linked here.
I had confirmed that the overlay is intended teasing to get you to download the PDF.