[proc0]

Typography is still important, but I'm saying interactivity is even more important yet still is a blindspot for most designers. You can imagine two websites, one with subpar typography but excellent responsiveness and interactivity, and the other with excellent typography but is slow and interactions are confusing or don't work perfectly. It's not hard to see interactivity wins.

Many UIs are notorious for bad typography but are still successful because they are responsive and smooth. I like typography but it's useless if the site loads slowly or the navigation is not intuitive, etc.

[brailsafe]

I suppose you (or perhaps designers) are thinking of interactivity in the opposite order as I am, as though it's a sensible or a necessary step to position some possibly janky animation in-between the visitor/user and what they're trying to accomplish, and it's sufficiently high-risk as to actually cause problems. I initially couldn't think of how some piece of UI would actually ship even though it posed a risk to the user's experience, but now that I do think about it, it's always been a top-down decision, less that of an actual designer; usually it's a bunch of pointless dropdowns or sliders that just weren't given any thought, and engineers or designers were told to do it because 2 weeks gotta go fast gotta ship. There can be some really bad offenders out there, I've worked on fixing them, I just usually attribute that to pointless pressure to build specific things, where implementation details are removed from the agency of their rightful craftspeople.