[ehnto]

I appreciate that it's better than flash. I still don't think it is good UX.

Good UX is doing things the user expects when the user wants, and not presuming it is okay to take their attention when you see fit (ahem, popups).

It's almost always a compromise to a websites usability to include autoplaying video (or video alikes). It may even improve conversions, but it's definitely a UX compromise, not an improvement.

No one scrolls through a website and thinks "I sure hope I get interuppted on my way to the action I am trying to complete" even when that action is content discovery.

I did like some of the articles ideas though. I think the role of cinematography is overplayed a little bit, some of the suggestions are just good UX decisions.

[kanze_]

I agree mixing any type of animation in a content area is jarring. But what I'm doing here is using the same sort of pattern people are comfortable with on the internet already.

I think every user expects some sort of introductory section at the top of a content area, whether it's just a title and preface or a banner/hero image to set the mood or peak interest.

Also let's not lose sight of the true purpose of the article - it's about a variety of techniques that may have nothing to do with animations and more about storytelling and scene composition of information to lead users into call to actions :)

[callumlocke]

Good UX depends on audience and context. Many things are widely shared precisely because they give the user something fun and unexpected.

For people who work with computers all day, being online is more perfunctory, and the pleasure of seeing something fun/different rarely outweighs the annoyance of the interruption or of having to figure out an unconventional UI. But that's not everyone.