[voidnap]

What do you think the premise of the article is? The article is pretty narrowly speaking of "app" UI and your comment is a "well actually" that some videos intentionally introduce noise or temporary discomfort for an emotional or artistic effect. On the same basis, comments like yours would defend screen shake if it was added to desktop and mobile apps on every user input.

[fasterik]

The premise of the article is that every frame of an animation should look good if captured and analyzed statically, in isolation. There's no reason provided for this other than "it feels right." I'm saying that this ignores how the human visual system works and how we perceive displays in real-world lighting conditions. I used film as an analogy to illustrate the point.

The idea that I would defend screen shake is a complete straw man. How do you get from my comment to that conclusion?

[voidnap]

> every frame of an animation should look good if captured and analyzed statically, in isolation

This is just true though. It isn't the only thing that matters but if you are creating a game or a video sometimes you do capture things frame by frame to understand why something looks off when animated.

Your film thing isn't an analogy, you are trying to say film is an example where some frames have motion blur so they don't look good, but since that's okay in film, it should be okay in software and apps. The word "good" is being overloaded to mean different things in each example. Screen shake in a video game or chromatic abberation in a film can be good in those contexts because they are the intent of the artistic direction. Maybe if you are hung up on the word "good" replace it with "appropriate" or "intentional".