This is cool and I don't mean to disparage the work that went into it, but at the same time I hope nobody actually uses it because just plain old vertical scrolling web pages are way more practically usable.
It's a good alternative to Flash. I don't think people really advocate the effect as a replacement for normal scrolling paradigms. There are some specific cases where it might make sense to do it and it's great that those pages will no longer be forced into Flash.
> There are some specific cases where it might make sense to do it
Like when your client demands it and you give in?
I've used pageflip in the past and grew to abhor it. It's only quality is the cool factor, which we got over 6 years ago. I hate magazines that use it for their "digital" version.
There's also a reason it is used. A typical magazine layout does not translate well on an vertical scrolling page. This is one solution to a conversion problem. There's not always a "BEST" solution to that kind of thing. There are trade-offs no matter what you choose to do. However, providing different ways to view the same information is usually a good practice.
I wonder what is the "user" perspective on this. I am not sure everyone hates it - since it feels familiar in terms of structure.
I agree, but the trade-offs depend on your goals, and for each of those there is a best solution. If you want to provide a good reading experience on the web, you have to use appropriate layouts.
This isn't necessarily true. For instance, if A and B are each measurable characteristics of potential solutions and your goal values A and B equally, if all other characteristics of solutions X and Y are equal, but X={A:2, B:7, ...} and Y={A:7, B:2, ...}, then X and Y are equally "good" solutions according to your goal.
>Like when your client demands it and you give in?
Someone in this thread gave a great example: their company makes "photobooks" and this effect is used in the preview before you order to make it feel more "real". I think that's a legitimate use.
Obviously, magazines that just plaster pieces of the PDF on and then demand the page flip are not usable or accessible, but there are other uses for something like this.
Of course, using a paper simulator to showcase printed material makes complete sense :)
My comment was related to the (common) case where someone thinks this is the best way to adapt printed content to the web, and that people actually want virtual magazines instead of something suited to screen reading/interaction. Fortunately that appears to be a dying mindset.
There are still a lot of print-trained editors and other publishing roles out there. The more the UX metaphor relates to past models the more secure they are in their positions. I simply think this, along with a smidgen of gewgaw for the animation, is the simplest explanation. It's easier for a pageflip model to be approved by oldschoolers.
We've used a similar effect in a sales collateral portal. We have a bunch of PDF sales sheets, and small brochures. The client wanted sales reps to be able to preview the PDF in a more lightweight form, and the page turn helps visualize the printed layout a bit.
Yeah, this script reminded me of an old photo-flipbook program that wasy available a long time ago (I think for Windows 3.1x). At first the effect seemed "neat", but after browsing hundreds of photos with the same effect the novelty weared out and it became cumbersome.
> At first the effect seemed "neat", but after [repeated use] the novelty wore off and it became cumbersome
I find the same with virtually all animations on phones and other UIs. If it can show me what I want a smidgen quicker by not animating then it gets disabled.
I think so to, but usability research done by a partner company of ours showed, to their and our surprise, that "ordinary users" prefer this page turning effect.
I would have to know more about the study to know if this is meaningful. When people see something novel (to them) they often think they prefer it to whatever the old thing is simply due to the novelty. But they might change their mind if they were actually forced to use the new method for some time.
Case in point: touchscreens replacing dials and switches in cars -- cool right? So flexible! But no, in reality they suck and you can't use them at all without becoming a danger to yourself and everyone else on the road. Physical dials and switches are way better because they can be controlled without actually looking at them. But this is something that takes a while to become obvious to people (in fact, car makers are still fucking this up).
I would question this result in almost every meaningful demographic. I've sat and watched people fail to discover non-standard navigation methods countless times in testing of products across 12-18 and 20-60 (students and teachers separately) every time one is provided as part of a supplier product. Unless there was some kind of conscious or subconscious prompting going on I would doubt that anyone would genuinely favor it.
You can easily, to the detriment of results, create an environment where people say they like something when really they like the impact the the thing had on them the first time ("oh, cool") when really they don't prefer it at all but the record only reflects their initial impression.
Demographics are more varied than that though - they also vary by Country. Take Denmark, the birthplace of several of the major players in flip catalogs - online flip based catalogs are so common that every internet going user knows what they are, and how to interact with them.
With such a common use of them, we can start looking at how to optimize the catalog format itself, rather than stick with the scrolling vs. catalog format discussion.
Usability and prefer are two words that are dangerous when used together. While it worked, I found it completely unusable on my phone and tablet. I'm not sure the mouse would serve any better either.
what sort of usablity research? did you show users a page with and without page turn effects and ask them which they prefer, or did you actually monitor their usage over an extended period and see which pattern encouraged more use?
because of course your users say they like the flashy effects, but you should never listen to your users when they say things like that. that's the sort of thinking that leads to sounds when buttons are pressed.
