alt Hacker NewsThat is exactly what I'm talking about, though. This is not what is happening with buggy computer UI animations: these are not carefully crafted to look better in motion, they're actually only considered acceptable because it's kind of difficult to see the mistakes in the animation. Whereas cartoon animating, you could argue the details don't make logical sense, but that's only to someone who doesn't understand the principles of animation. You can't explain away glitchy weird UI transitions this way because they're pretty much universally not intentional. They're usually just taking the technical path of least resistance.
Replies
No one is defending outright buggy animations. OP is just saying the idea that every frame should make logical sense on its own ignores how animation actually works (and they're correct).
That's not what TFA is about though.
Look at the youtube example - it has two pieces of UI animating from from a start point to an end point, and the paths are such that they momentarily overlap. There's nothing buggy or janky about it in motion; TFA is just saying that if you ignore the motion and take a screenshot mid-transition it looks odd. Same complaint as what GP describes, and silly for the same reasons.
I think there's also a major difference between the kind of weird intermediate frames that are acceptable for a highly-stylized cartoon at 24FPS and the kind of intermediate frames that are acceptable for a UI running at 120FPS.