>My general attitude towards this article is one of cautious >skepticism, likely due to my being a cranky UXP consultant. It's also >likely due to the terms "animation" and "UI" being used in the >same paragraph (or sentence even). It makes me... twitchy.
And with good reason, I'm sure. We read "animated UI" and we think "all singing, all dancing, can't make it shut up and be still". Haven't people got that out of their system yet?
What we'll hopefully see, though, are an increase in subtle and ambient "animations", the sort which take us toward a "cinematic UI". Select an object that can be dropped on some targets but not others, and the available ones "signal" that they are viable, so you don't have scrub over things to discover them. Google pushpins which drop from the sky. Widgets that "flip over" to show their backs. Subtle animations to indicate movement, age, availability, etc. All the things which make the virtual world slightly more real and/or slightly more whimsical.
(Whimsy. There's noting wrong with it, so long as it doesn't get in the way. If I have to wait an extra 1/4 second for the flying pushpins, no big deal. If Disco's smoke prevents me from working in other windows -- or if breathing it increases my chance of hard drive cancer -- then it's bad.)
Any of these things and more we can do today, but we have to invent the wheel on each of them. A core library should make those things more available to all developers, and should add greater consistency to what is created.