>Computer UIs need animations for the same reason they need shadows, gradients, and momentum: because these are aspects of the physical world that we already know how to interpert, so can be used "for free" to aid our understanding of the UI
More like "for the same reason a fish needs a bicycle".
>Not using animations would likely be more taxing on our visual processing
And yet, Windows 2000 era UI was far more intuitive, consistent, and self-discoverable than today's animated, shadowed, gradient-filled, blurry transulcent, momentum-having flat crap.
The shadow is around flat piece of paper of zero height, levitating off the background, casting shadow 360 degrees all around. No physical lighting set up could produce this effect.
If you have a diffuse light source, let's say 8dp, directly above the component and the component is also 8dp above the background, then it'll look right for one component.
To account for the lack of parallex effect in the shadow when there are multiple components, you will then need a telephoto lens zoomed through the light source from a huge distance. I think we'll need a ring light.
More like "for the same reason a fish needs a bicycle".
>Not using animations would likely be more taxing on our visual processing
And yet, Windows 2000 era UI was far more intuitive, consistent, and self-discoverable than today's animated, shadowed, gradient-filled, blurry transulcent, momentum-having flat crap.