Top
Best
New

Posted by PaulHoule 4 hours ago

Death to Scroll Fade(dbushell.com)
280 points | 154 comments
Night_Thastus 2 hours ago|
Something else scroll-related I personally hate:

Sticky 'headers' that disappear when you scroll down, and appear when you scroll up. I hate them so much. It hurts my brain to see the stupid thing appear and disappear constantly if I scroll around a page.

The worst part is you can't even zap them out of the way with something like uBlock, because then there's no header even when you're at the top of the page. >:(

EDIT: Whoops, flipped the directions. Complaint still stands though.

lebuin 1 hour ago||
God yes. For some reason, I automatically scroll in such a way that I always keep what I'm reading at the very top of the screen. Which means that every time I want to reread a sentence I first have to scroll past the header.
gibspaulding 1 hour ago|||
This only really works easily on desktop and requires a click, but is very satisfying to use:

https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/

vmg12 1 hour ago|||
Also if anything it should disappear when scrolling down and appear when scrolling up.
kreyenborgi 49 minutes ago|||
Oh god yes I absolutely hate those. Who on earth thought that was a good idea.

There is a special circle in hell where designers of such sites have to actually use the sites they design.

dylan604 6 minutes ago||
someone designing for mobile first and wanted to maximize screen space. we don't have to be obtuse about it. it was an idea that just didn't go over as well as hoped. clearly, some people like it. it's not your cup of tea, great. now, we all know your feelings. next time i build a site, i'll be sure to get your opinions first.
adito 2 hours ago|||
Oh. This. Tho I solved that with userstyles.
Griffinsauce 2 hours ago||
Joke's on you, we implement all animations in JS
cowpig 1 hour ago|||
Interesting, I find sticky headers to be the bane of my existence, and the ones that disappear but reappear on scroll up are a lesser evil
m463 1 hour ago|||
same thing intersects with ios safari when it hides top and bottom tool bars, hate that too.

and with the website doing the same thing, it's a mess.

adventured 2 hours ago|||
Screen real-estate for legitimate content is often at a premium and then they go and steal some of that land with sticky headers and or footers. I occasionally run across mobile sites that use both at the same time, while throwing in ads here and there, it's an atrocious experience.
tylervigen 2 hours ago||
Yes but then I think they should leave the header at the top of the page. If I need it I'll scroll all the way back up! Don't make it randomly re-appear and cover the text I wanted to see because I decided to re-read that last paragraph.
swiftcoder 1 hour ago||
Especially since mobile browsers typically have a shortcut for scroll-all-the-way-to-the-top
Illniyar 1 hour ago||
This is literally the best ux pattern you can have. It is intuitive - user immediately discovers it when performing the obvious action, it increases the user experience (more text to read) without any real downside.

It is the first thing I suggest to anyone when I see someone didn't implement it.

I've never heard a complaint about it until now.

zimzam 1 hour ago|||
This is only true if you assume users always scroll down while reading and the only reason they scroll up is to find the header... but many of us scroll up and down while reading and find the re-appearance of the header to interfere with our goal of reading the content. So there is a clear downside for us "up and down" readers.

I don't know what portion of users we are though, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one!

nativeit 1 hour ago||||
I consider it context-dependent. If a site is intended for users to jump around to different pages often, then sticky headers make sense. If it’s designed for long-form articles or scrolling through feeds, then non-sticky headers make sense. When I have implemented them on my own sites, I try to keep them minimal and unobtrusive. But I also have never heard this complaint specifically, until now.
orthoxerox 7 minutes ago||||
It might be useful if you wait until the user has scrolled more than 20% of the viewport and not pop it out immediately.
HerbManic 1 hour ago||||
The user discovers it because it is practically forced on them. It is awful UI.
Illniyar 1 hour ago||
When a user wants to return to the navigation bar at the top he scrolls up. The navigation bar then immediately gets nearer.

The user discovery happens because the act he performs provides the exact intent you need to give him the shortcut.

Also for clarity this is only relevant for content based sites and not apps. It is vanishingly rare for users to scroll up when reading content unless they want to reach the top

Night_Thastus 29 minutes ago|||
>It is vanishingly rare for users to scroll up when reading content unless they want to reach the top

This assumption is the problem. No, it is not rare for users to scroll up while reading. People are not perfect machines that read everything in one pass and understand it fully.

They may go back to re-read, or look at an earlier image or figure in the text, or otherwise. Sometimes people zone out for a minute and find they 'read' with their eyes but didn't actually take in the content. That requires going back.

For me, scrolling up to re-read is a basic use case of a web page. If it can't do that properly, it has failed.

oe 1 hour ago|||
That’s not why user scrolls up, or at least not the only reason. For example, reading this discussion I constantly scroll up and down to center the text on screen.

If the header only appears after scrolling up for a bit then it’s not so bad, but most implementations show the header after scrolling 1px up. That’s infuriating.

zbrozek 1 hour ago||||
I absolutely hate it. If you haven't heard a complaint about it, you haven't tried hard enough to get feedback.

There is no context which makes it OK.

carlosjobim 40 minutes ago||||
It's awful for the user. There is no reason why scrolling up should perform any other action then scrolling up the content. Zero benefit for anybody involved.
underlipton 1 hour ago|||
You could just have a "hide bar" button. Dunno how you get it back, maybe put your design smarts there.

Stop making things "intuitive" and expose explicit options to users.

ryandrake 3 hours ago||
> This post purposefully ignores the reduced motion preference to give everyone the same truly terrible experience. I am sorry. Please use your browser’s reader mode.

"Reader Mode" shouldn't even be a special mode. It should just be the default browsing experience, and users who want all this styling crap should have to enable "Clown Mode" or something.

wtallis 1 hour ago||
I want a reader mode that renders the page as if it were in an extremely tall window (ie. 10+ screens tall), then gives me a scrollable view of that static image of the rendered page. My browser should lie to the page on my behalf, and make it behave as if everything were already on-screen.
sp1rit 57 minutes ago||
Materialistic[0] effectively does this (minus the screenshot part), not intentional I think (I belive it makes the webview as tall as the requested page and then uses the OS native scroll widget to add a scrollbar for it). The problem I regularly encounter with this is sites that have a vertically centered popup (cookie banner, newsletter, etc.), with a backdrop that obscures the whole page. You first have to scroll down quite a bit (half the size of the article) to be able to click the popup away.

[0]:https://github.com/hidroh/materialistic

hapless 2 hours ago|||
the reason "reader mode" isn't the default is to discourage website authors from intentionally breaking reader mode

-_-

SilasX 1 hour ago||
This. It's fundamentally a social problem. The moment that reader mode becomes the default, they'll start gradually extending it with "useful" additions until it's just as bloated and painful again, and then we'll have some rebrand of the concept of reader mode, and the cycle starts anew.

"Why can't we have a functional version of the site for the blind, and the normal one for everyone else?"

'We have that! It's called HTML!"

Edit: Earlier version of this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961

MoonWalk 3 hours ago|||
"should have to enable "Clown Mode" or something."

Bwahahaha, +1! This reminds me of calling Windows XP's default motif "Fisher-Price" mode. Which, sadly, looks professional and efficient compared to Windows (and, increasingly, the Mac) today.

mghackerlady 2 hours ago|||
I actually think modern windows looks nice. It isn't nearly as good as the classic 9x look, but fluent obviously is a response to the visual shitshow that was 10
HerbManic 1 hour ago||||
I like that Apple was trying somwthing that has a little more texture and soul to it, but Liquid glass needs a lot of work to be made more subtle and usable. 10 out of 10 idea, 3 out of 10 execution.
bigyabai 2 hours ago|||
Big Sur made me take back every Fischer Price comment I ever made about Windows XP. I didn't think it was possible to make a more childish UI than Aqua, but here we are.
carlosjobim 3 hours ago|||
On MacOS and iOS you can set reader mode as default. You should set reader mode as default.
apples_oranges 3 hours ago||
what a good idea to have this automatically come up when the page opens, and perhaps give user a few seconds to press escape to get rid of it, if needed
carlosjobim 37 minutes ago||
Why just a few seconds? In reader mode you can press escape any time to close it.
realityfactchex 3 hours ago||
I thought this was going to be about iOS and how now (as of iOS 26) there is a "fade out" at the top of every web page (around the notch/top-edge area).

When scrolling/reading a web page, it literally changes that section of the text so that it fades to gray.

So, "everything scroll fades".

I couldn't find a way to turn it off. Quite irritating, IMHO.

EDITED TO ADD ELABORATION: The issue with iOS "scroll fade" text color in Safari near the top notch is that this makes that top-edge-text "dynamic" (changing) and thus "draws attention" to it visually, thus competing for eyeball attention when I am probably actually reading somewhere further down on the page. Also, I would still like to be able to glance up to the topmost visible text if wanted, without having to adjust to its different and less visible colors. Apple designers should know all this. Further, I'd say the page text color should probably by default respect what the web page designer configured it as, and not have the OS change that text color (unless the user gets fancy and requests an override with dark mode or whatever settings).

This article's critique seems valid, too (more generically about "scroll fade" in interfaces, e.g. web pages, which seems to mostly be about items appearing gradually via motion). Personally, I see less of that these days, compared to making every page in an OS fade out where unnecessary.

MoonWalk 3 hours ago||
Even better iOS example of not just "scroll fade" but regressive and incompetent UI design: the moving of Music's playback controls from the empty area at the top of the window into the content-browser area... where the controls are "transparent" and overlap the text and thumbnail images there. And all that stuff in the content-browser pane? Yep, it scroll-fades.
jerlam 3 hours ago||
I turned on "Reduce Transparency", and instead of a fade, it turns the top and bottom sections of the screen into blank white space.

My "edge to edge screen" iPhone now resembles the last generation of iPhones with home button from 2017.

hedora 2 hours ago|||
On iOS 26 (up to date as of this comment), the Orion web browser from Kagi does not have this problem.

It also supports firefox and chrome extensions, so you can use things like UBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.

nottorp 2 hours ago|||
It's that bad?

How about they give us back small iPhones with 4" screens then and whoever wants the fade can imagine it outside the physical phone?

jerlam 2 hours ago||
On my iPhone 13 Mini, the space dedicated to showing browser content is around 4.25" diagonal with the Safari fade, so we're not that far off.
nottorp 2 hours ago||
I've managed to avoid being tricked into upgrading to 26 so far, and every week I find a new reason not to.
sgbeal 4 hours ago||
The poster seems to be implying that this effect is prevalent across the web, yet i'm seeing it for the very first time on that post. (And, indeed, it's annoying. My eyes can't read when there's animation going on nearby.)

The goldfish animation along the bottom is epic and i will have to mine that bit for reuse somewhere :).

wgjordan 3 hours ago||
Anthropic uses it across all their websites, here's a typical example where the effect is obvious as you scroll down: https://claude.com/solutions/agents

I could be wrong, but my simple guess is that it's become widespread in LLM-generated websites partly because of Anthropic's own style guides getting adopted through Claude-bundled skills and such.

ayhanfuat 3 hours ago|||
It is partly to blame, yes. This is from Claude’s official frontend skill:

“Motion: Use animations for effects and micro-interactions. Prioritize CSS-only solutions for HTML. Use Motion library for React when available. Focus on high-impact moments: one well-orchestrated page load with staggered reveals (animation-delay) creates more delight than scattered micro-interactions. Use scroll-triggering and hover states that surprise.”

SoftTalker 3 hours ago|||
Who thinks like this? The last thing I want on a website is surprise. I want to do what I came there to do, the same way it worked last time, and then get on with my day.
MoonWalk 2 hours ago||
On a Web site or anywhere else. Apple, Microsoft, "flat design," and peek-a-boo UI all insult the user and waste his time by turning an important tool into an Advent calendar.
hedora 1 hour ago||
s/micro intentions/micro aggressions/
fainpul 2 hours ago|||
> creates more delight

ARE YOU NOT DELIGHTED?

quietbritishjim 3 hours ago||||
That's a bit different since those are separate chunks of content rather than running prose (and they're mainly meaningless marketing fluff anyway). I don't find it all that annoying compared to the original article.
wtallis 2 hours ago|||
It's still incredibly insulting to waste the user's time trying to force them to read the page sequentially instead of being able to immediately scroll to the chunk of content they are actually trying to find. Especially if it is not the user's first visit to the page.
hedora 1 hour ago||
Studies show that viewer comprehension is strictly worse for presentations that use “build” animations vs ones that do not.

I assume the study results would be the same if they were repeated using fade scrolls.

plorkyeran 51 minutes ago|||
It's not as bad because it's a much faster fade in, but I still find it incredibly obnoxious.
mavamaarten 3 hours ago||||
On top of that, that page took 10 seconds to load. On a Gbit network connection, lol
dreko 2 hours ago||||
This is a great example of LLM feedback loops. Anthropic's site uses scroll fade, Claude's training data includes Anthropic's site, Claude recommends scroll fade to users, those sites become future training data. The web converges on one aesthetic and nobody remembers choosing it.
apsurd 3 hours ago||||
https://webflow.com/ is what i blame for the fade-in on scroll module.

15 years ago it did look very polished, boutique, professional. Now that it's a module everyone can do, everyone literally does it for every module.

Also there's tailwind that likely has a module for all the modules in webflow.

Waterluvian 3 hours ago||||
Are the little hand animation graphics meant to flicker like they're an epilepsy test? That was so awful I didn't have brain power left to notice the fade scroll.
psychoslave 3 hours ago||||
You are absolutely right!
RobotToaster 3 hours ago||||
Parts also seem to ignore prefers-reduced-motion.
peab 3 hours ago|||
the effect in this example fine though, and not obnoxious like OPs? I don't get it
Sohcahtoa82 3 hours ago|||
> The poster seems to be implying that this effect is prevalent across the web

Because it is.

For sites with dynamic content (social media, news, etc.), it doesn't happen.

But commercial sites trying to convince you to use their product, they're incredibly common. It's not always a fade in exactly like this site does it. Sometimes it's content sliding in from the side.

It's incredibly pervasive on SaaS marketing pages.

sgbeal 3 hours ago||
> It's incredibly pervasive on SaaS marketing pages.

That would explain my ignorance of it - such sites are in the bottom negligible percentage of sites which i might accidentally visit but never purposely do.

ramon156 4 hours ago|||
I was redesigning a website of mine and Claude suggested to add this as an animation. My theory is that, if claude is confident in a suggestion, a lot of other people have done the same.

Maybe it's too subtle to notice.

Edit: on odeva.nl

chrismorgan 3 hours ago||
The scroll fade on that site is comparatively inoffensive (comparatively), because you messed with scrolling itself, which is one of the worst things you can do, taking over and ruining inertia. You’re literally going out of your way to make things worse. The ONLY time scrolljacking of any kind is acceptable is for things like maps where there is no “normal”.
eru 3 hours ago||
Or for a game, where it's part of the interface.
chrismorgan 3 hours ago||
Got an example of what you mean? Because if you mean the only thing I can think of, I very strongly disagree.
wtallis 2 hours ago||
Hijacking native scroll behavior to badly reimplement anything remotely like scrolling is wrong even in a gaming context. But if you're implementing Half Life 2 in a browser, where the user no longer has a normal cursor, then hijacking scrolling to implement the weapon switcher is fine.
jonas21 3 hours ago|||
You probably haven't noticed it before because when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect that can be used to draw your attention to particular elements on the page.

This site is intentionally doing it very poorly to make a point. Really, the takeaway should be don't do things poorly. But that's kind of obvious.

JohnFen 3 hours ago|||
> when it's done well, it's a subtle and pleasant effect

I've seen it quite a lot, but apparently I've never seen it done well. It's a very annoying effect that chases me away from the site using it.

marssaxman 3 hours ago||||
Not doing it at all would be better still. It's really annoying.
troupo 3 hours ago||||
Fade in in scroll will always be slower than the reading speed of a significant percentage of population.

This becomes worse for people who just skim content, re-read the text, or want to quickly scroll to a specific place in text

jonas21 3 hours ago||
It can speed up the loading of the above-the-fold content because the images on the rest of the page can be loaded as the user scrolls closer to them.
talim 2 hours ago|||
You can do this with just the 'loading' attribute on img elements and let the browser handle it without the gratuitous animations:

   <img loading="lazy" src="image.jpg" alt="..." />
knorker 3 hours ago|||
So you agree that for text, it should NEVER be used. And you are only arguing for lazy loading of images?
SAI_Peregrinus 2 hours ago||||
Yes, if you make things only slightly worse it's better than if you make them a lot worse. But neither is quite as good as not deliberately making things worse.
knorker 3 hours ago|||
> when it's done well

It's always awful. This site is exagerated in degree, but in kind it's merely on the scale of awful.

Computers should not waste my time. Even if eyes are 10ms faster than the awful fade, if a million people see it, that's almost three hours of human life down the drain.

And when scrolling fast, or far, it's not uncommon to have it waste a second of human time. A million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant".

It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time.

The web is already slow. No need to deliberately spend effort to make it even slower.

MoonWalk 2 hours ago|||
"It's fantastically disrespectful of other people's time."

And this is what people have become way, WAY too tolerant of. The deliberate theft of customers' time. While this is obviously a very minor example, there are lots and lots of others that aren't.

stefanfisk 3 hours ago||||
Agree 100%!

I’m a fast scroller and skimmer. Info scroll down and the text is not there I’ll just assume that the site is shot and close it. Ain’t nobody got 200ms to wait for a god damn fade in when there’s an infinite amount of sites out there to discover.

arcfour 3 hours ago||||
I don't have a strong opinion either way on the effect, but I do have to say that I always find it amusing how fatalistic HN can sometimes be over the most minor cosmetic inconveniences, couching them as "wasting (large amounts of) humanity's time" and "disrespecting people" as if we're talking about something far more serious than little animations on a webpage.

I mean, you might not like it, and that's fair and understandable, but is it really that big of a deal? Surely not.

knorker 2 hours ago||
I mean, like the other commenter I would just close the page instead of enduring it.

But yes, in fact if this page succeeds then it's wasting human life on things as productive as spam phone calls. People have solved the latter by simply not answering for unknown numbers.

Not sure what you mean by "fatalistic". To the point where I'm not sure that's the word you mean. It's fatalistic as in fate. Maybe you mean morbid?

Standing in line at the DMV is also all "counting flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all"? But even at the DMV it's (hopefully) not done maliciously.

> cosmetic inconveniences

Sometimes things suck. That's not remotely as frustrating as knowing that someone went out of their way to make your life worse.

> is it really that big of a deal? Surely not.

If we capped all laptop CPUs to 600MHz, would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe they did it because of the acoustic preference of not needing to spin the fans as much, and therefore you are not allowed faster CPUs?

arcfour 1 hour ago||
They didn't go out of their way to make your life worse. They went out of their way to design something they thought you would like, but you didn't like it.
slopinthebag 1 hour ago||||
> million of those is 38 human working days, just flushed down the toilet, because someone wanted "pleasant".

This is the wrong conclusion. The amount of work that can be accomplished summing one second from 38 million people is approximately zero - much different from stealing 1 day from 38 people or 1 hour from 912.

smohare 2 hours ago|||
[dead]
Xerox9213 4 hours ago|||
https://history-of-animation.webflow.io/
RobotToaster 3 hours ago|||
Are you sure you don't have prefers-reduced-motion enabled? I just found out I already have it enabled when I went to look for how to enable it...
DrewADesign 3 hours ago|||
I’ve seen the mostly in personal website templates used by people that would have had very sparkly MySpace profiles had they been creating for the web back then.
llm_nerd 3 hours ago|||
It definitely isn't prevalent, and usually is for "feature" pieces (like an expose on the Washington Post back when they were a real newspaper), along with product pages.

Apple uses it for their various pages, and it is legitimately annoying-

https://www.apple.com/iphone/

Tesla is a fan as well-

https://www.tesla.com/models

Occasionally sites use lazy loaded images, and do a "fade in" effect when they're actually loaded. Nothing wrong with that particular use.

flexagoon 3 hours ago||
> https://www.tesla.com/models

Love how that page takes almost 10 seconds to load for the first time on a 200Mbps connection

ge96 3 hours ago||
> The goldfish

It goes where you click in the water area

jeff_tyrrill 2 hours ago||
I feel like the scroll fade fad is misunderstanding layered on bugs, turtles all the way down.

Once upon a time, developers implemented lazy loading of images, to save bandwidth. However, some developers implemented it poorly, waiting until the moment an image is scrolled on-screen to even start loading it, leading to a visible blip as you scroll.

(The better way would be to load an additional pageful of images beyond the current scroll view, which would provide enough time to load before scrolling into view at least most of the time. However, this doesn't maximally save bandwidth and some developers don't make good tradeoffs between diminishing returns on saving bandwidth vs. visibly degraded UX.)

Then, designers saw the blip-into-view effect, thought it was an intentional visual effect (rather than an artifact of poorly implemented lazy loading), but thought, oh, I'll fix it so it looks nice, with fading.

And here we are with a dumb visual fad originating from a bug without realizing it was a bug.

tylervigen 2 hours ago|
...is that really the story? It feels like these are two related, but different things.
saghm 2 hours ago|||
I'm not sure it's feasible to prove or disprove how this design trend started. I wouldn't be shocked if it was true, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't. I'd be more surprised if we ever found out for sure one way or another than about what the truth is.
jeff_tyrrill 2 hours ago|||
I haven't dug into the history to see if this is really how it happened. I'd actually feel better if it wasn't true but it's the thought that occurred to me when I noticed the scroll fade effect becoming popular.
yards 3 hours ago||
I raise you one. Death to the parallax scroll. In fact, death to all scroll animations.
ryandrake 3 hours ago||
Scrolling should just move a fixed size view up and down a fixed sized page. Why on earth must everyone complicate it so much?
marssaxman 3 hours ago||
I don't understand why browsers ever let designers fuck up the scrolling mechanism in the first place. Why is that even possible?
ryandrake 3 hours ago||
Browsers have handed way too much control to web developers. "The web as a software SDK" was a terrible idea.
bigstrat2003 1 hour ago|||
My biggest annoyance: letting scripts control the history. I can imagine that someone thought "oh it'll be nice, you can use it for pages of an app". But the reality is that people are not nice and it gets used maliciously all the damn time. It should not be allowed.
mghackerlady 2 hours ago|||
The web should be a method of delivering documents exclusively, and be limited to the kinds of things you can do with other computerized documents (the basics, but also Audio, Video, Animations, hyperlinking, etc.)
wtallis 1 hour ago||
I'd be okay with locking these heavily-abused features behind a "web app mode" that the user has to enable on a per-site basis. It should include a restriction forcing all content to come from the same origin, so that the browser in that mode won't make it easy for web apps to include third-party tracking or advertising.
ivanjermakov 3 hours ago|||
Death to scroll event override in general. Messes up my vimium smooth scrolling.
pier25 3 hours ago||
Absolutely.

I'm not against animations in UI design but these should be used purposefully to direct the user's attention on something or for minimal aesthetic effect. When everything is moving it's just like adding a ton of ketchup to everything.

bingemaker 2 hours ago||
I worked for a client who was all about scrolljacking. Then he discovered parallax effect, and there was no looking back. He fired me, and got another team who didn't have any opinions.

Now the page stutters on every device other than iPhone 16+ with 5G. :shrug:

marcosdumay 3 hours ago||
Gotta love the attention to detail at the end, that is illegible when selected too.

It's not realistic, though. Illegible sites never get that detail right.

kevin_thibedeau 1 hour ago|
They usually inhibit selection to protect their sacred text.
jjcm 1 hour ago||
There's a very simple fix I typically do when it comes to animations:

    animationCount = 0
    animateElement(el) {
        el.animate({duration: BASE_DURATION / animationCount})
        animationCount++
    }
(formula exagerated for simplicity)

Essentially, for any animation that gets repeated, it should decrease in duration over time. This makes things impactful when they're first being displayed, but they very quickly approach an extremely minimal state, making things feel snappy.

wincy 3 hours ago|
Hah, the point has certainly been made. Absolute Barf-o-Rama.

I suffer from pretty severe motion sickness, which hasn’t really improved as an adult, and this page immediately made me feel like I’m going to throw up. Had to switch to reader mode after the first image. I was always the kid who couldn’t read in the car, and was always groggy on long road trips because of Dramamine (side note, Meclizine has significantly improved my life, as it has largely the same effect without drowsiness). As an adult I’m fine as long as I’m in the front seat, public transit is terrible for me. Elevators are tiny torture chambers, especially when stopping on multiple floors. And it’s cumulative, the sensation becomes worse the more I’m exposed to it over the course of a day (I have a mental “theme park budget” in my head of how many rides I can comfortably do!). VR can’t have any motion that isn’t firmly anchored to a sense of place (space ship/driving sims are okay though!)

I’m glad awareness is being raised about this, but I’m curious what websites are using this now? Is it just personal blogs and the like right now? I definitely would have noticed this cropping up on websites I frequent.

freedomben 3 hours ago||
> As an adult I’m fine as long as I’m in the front seat, public transit is terrible for me.

Me too! The worst part about this is anytime there's more than two adults in the vehicle, the "front seat" has all sorts of social expectations and courtesies. I once mentioned that I get motion sick when not in the front seat, and I could tell that nobody believed me and thought it was an uncool way to try and guilt people into letting me monopolize the favored chair. After that I don't bother, but do try to avoid shared cars because in those I'll be quietly sitting in a torture chamber while others around me don't understand.

Also, good God those drivers whould constantly gas-brake-gas-gas-brake-gas-brake-brake-gas. I get it when all the sudden traffic rapidly and unexpectedly slows down, but so many people seem to always be pressing at least one pedal, never coasting. It's torture

snozolli 3 hours ago||
I suffer from pretty severe motion sickness

I don't, and yet I am also feeling nauseated after reading that page! What a truly awful experience.

More comments...