Nice and thorough article! Still, is this a good practice? I'm curious as to where the applications of this is useful? It's mostly these slick agency websites that use it for cases, usually to my annoyance. I prefer to have control over my scroll.

I like the concept! My expectation when adding for example something in "Read" was that it would automatically search and fetch metadata, showing author, cover etc. Kind of disappointed that it didn't! If not, I might as well use Reminders. If that was there, I would use it! I would also enjoy the feature of choosing what type of curation I'm looking at.. For books, maybe New York Times Bestsellers etc. Right now I'm not really sure how and why these items are there.

Glad to hear it you had a good time! Now, I'm not looking to spread negativity just because. The problem that I sometimes face are clients who have seen something "cool" on Behance or Dribbble with 20 gradients, triple drop shadows and buttons that are unusable. From that, they want an app/site/service looking just like it.

Their misjudgement lies in that they think "sexy" UI wins users and makes them happy. It doesn't. Maybe initially – just like people I guess. ;) But when we start introducing new interaction patterns, people will get confused. And I have then have to argue why sexiness in UI is not good UX because the users will get frustrated when things don't behave like they expect. You can call me a UI conservative. People (except other designers maybe) will never love a designers button - they will love what the service can do for them.

Now, if fun is your drive here, go nuts with the neumorphism!

All the best, Erik

Who needs neomorphism? To me, it seems to be pushed by designers who want to create eye-candy, and getting likes on Dribbble. It has terrible accessibility support in terms of contrast and clarity, and hover states vs active states are in general incredibly confusing. Show me a convincing user testing of neomorphism improving anything in an interface.. And I'll be all for it.

This might be an annoying meta-answer, but from a designers perspective I would say "defining what UX is"..

Following that thought, if we let UX include how a company or service is perceived by a user in it's communication, I would say "handling inside-and-out-perspective".. Making a company cutting all the crap, being clear in what they offer through their communication. That has been a huge challenge for me.

The concept is nice and all, but you need to fix all the typos "Sampels, Togls, Allerts" etc.. to make me trust this. Also, the example components are not anything I would use as they mix UI conventions in a weird way - a primary button with a checkbox in it? That, sadly to say does not make any sense.

You can't animate to or from display: none because that code line takes that element totally out of the flow of content.. It can only be off or on. In other words, the CSS doesn't have any values to create animation "keyframes" from.

opacity: 0, height: 0 and pointer-events:none takes you a long way.

Animating height and/or width is to my knowledge easiest with jQuery, as you have to calculate the dimensions of an element in JS to actually animate that in a dynamic way.

This is a real nice idea, would love to get into it! Although, I'm thinking.. What's deal between you and the weekly client? I would appreciate if that was a bit clearer.

This looks interesting! Thank you, Mark!

You're splitting hairs now, but sure. I want a tool that enable developers to build a "design system", based on my (a designers) specifications. The problem with tools like Invision and Zeplin, is that even though I can kinda create components, I can't exemplify transition or different states in an easy way. Storybook looks good, but it's aimed towards developers. I need a tool before that in a workflow. I've used CodePen to do this, but then the structure is all up to me to build. And there is no versioning, access control etc.