[ryandrake]

It's clever, but honestly I don't care how smooth it is. Scrolling should simply scroll a view up or down a page. Not invoke animation. We already have established UX patterns for playing media, slowing it down, speeding it up, randomly seeking through it.

[jacobgkau]

Part of the smoothness here is that scrolling the text is 1:1 once you get down to the sections with colored headers. It demonstrates that it's possible to make a page look fancy like that without "breaking" your intuition of what scrolling "should be."

JS animations obviously don't take the place of video/audio media that you'd play/scrub through.

[JulianGarnier]

Hey I'm the author of the lib, exactly, I don't really "highjack" the body scroll, I'm only controlling the background animations with it, while keeping most of the body content scroll naturally with the page.

[mcluck]

False. Let the web be fun again

[derac]

For most websites, sure. For this website? It makes sense, it's a great demo for the product.

[johnsanders]

It's not so much about playing/slowing/speeding up an animation or video. It's about moving forward and backward through an "experience," as much as I dislike the overuse of that word. I'd suggest it's a natural evolution of the scroll behavior.

[robertlagrant]

Animation isn't really "playing media".

[jonwinstanley]

So what would you suggest to use to move the animation forward?

[evilduck]

Submitting a form repeatedly by hammering enter and having a new HTML fragment rendered on the server deliver the next frame, obviously.

[dalmo3]

AnimeNoJs

[hoc]

That missing Playdate phone accessory.

[throwaway290]

not use animation in the first place :)

[hydrolox]

isn't the point that it's an animation library showcasing what's possible?

[throwaway290]

good point, I read it as about websites in general but in this case why not.