For a while in web design it seemed that only the most high-end products (apple, new films coming out, high-end fashion brands) would use complex animations like these when trying to create a site that was more about the DRAMA..the VIBE. I believe, partly because they were difficult to create and partly because they were likely to slow your site waaaay down, which only a larger company would have the infrastructure to compensate for by putting that site on a much faster server. Additionally, many of the ways these animations are created involve code that doesn't work on old web browsers, so putting these things on a site meant you were choosing to exclude viewers on an old PC on Internet Explorer.
In a weird way, I think there was a period where having slick, animated sites made your brand look EXPENSIVE/EXCLUSIVE, because it was literally expensive (and excluded people) to use those things.
As fast as trends seem to move on the internet, web design can be surprisingly slow. The time from the invention of the technology that makes something to possible...to sites who can afford to implement it making that technology visible...to the technology being in use enough that most browsers/apps/platforms/devices have been forced to create compatibility with the tech...to the time where people expect that tech and it starts to become accessible to the wider public through page-builders, DIY software, etc... It's not nothin'.
Google tells me lottie animation was invented in 2015, here we are almost a decade later and it's about to be EVERYWHERE. The SVG file type has existed since 2001 (which can render vector graphics with a super tiny file size and unlimited scalability (no loss of quality if you make it gigantic), making them accessible to folks with slower servers)...but you can still find "best practices" pages pointing out that while you should use SVG, it's still less compatible with older software/systems, so you still want to have PNG fallback images.
"In a weird way, I think there was a period where having slick, animated sites made your brand look EXPENSIVE/EXCLUSIVE, because it was literally expensive (and excluded people) to use those things.": This 100%. But as it becomes more accessible—and is implemented poorly—it will seize to look expensive or exclusive. 'Tis the way of trends. Will be interesting to see how access to these motion tools will create new design languages online; I'm hopeful some will be super cool and NOT give me headaches.
I'm now getting ads for the new WIX STUDIO showcasing all of the effects made ~somewhat~ more accessible by Webflow, now fully available to Wix's target audience, which is everyone. Horizontal scroll. Shimmering glassmorphism. Brace yourself.
For a while in web design it seemed that only the most high-end products (apple, new films coming out, high-end fashion brands) would use complex animations like these when trying to create a site that was more about the DRAMA..the VIBE. I believe, partly because they were difficult to create and partly because they were likely to slow your site waaaay down, which only a larger company would have the infrastructure to compensate for by putting that site on a much faster server. Additionally, many of the ways these animations are created involve code that doesn't work on old web browsers, so putting these things on a site meant you were choosing to exclude viewers on an old PC on Internet Explorer.
In a weird way, I think there was a period where having slick, animated sites made your brand look EXPENSIVE/EXCLUSIVE, because it was literally expensive (and excluded people) to use those things.
As fast as trends seem to move on the internet, web design can be surprisingly slow. The time from the invention of the technology that makes something to possible...to sites who can afford to implement it making that technology visible...to the technology being in use enough that most browsers/apps/platforms/devices have been forced to create compatibility with the tech...to the time where people expect that tech and it starts to become accessible to the wider public through page-builders, DIY software, etc... It's not nothin'.
Google tells me lottie animation was invented in 2015, here we are almost a decade later and it's about to be EVERYWHERE. The SVG file type has existed since 2001 (which can render vector graphics with a super tiny file size and unlimited scalability (no loss of quality if you make it gigantic), making them accessible to folks with slower servers)...but you can still find "best practices" pages pointing out that while you should use SVG, it's still less compatible with older software/systems, so you still want to have PNG fallback images.
"In a weird way, I think there was a period where having slick, animated sites made your brand look EXPENSIVE/EXCLUSIVE, because it was literally expensive (and excluded people) to use those things.": This 100%. But as it becomes more accessible—and is implemented poorly—it will seize to look expensive or exclusive. 'Tis the way of trends. Will be interesting to see how access to these motion tools will create new design languages online; I'm hopeful some will be super cool and NOT give me headaches.
I'm now getting ads for the new WIX STUDIO showcasing all of the effects made ~somewhat~ more accessible by Webflow, now fully available to Wix's target audience, which is everyone. Horizontal scroll. Shimmering glassmorphism. Brace yourself.