That's even worse. He took a simple side-by-side comparison of 2 or 3 images, and invested substantial effort into making it far more annoying and harder to compare by an uncontrollable permanent headache inducing slow flicker which is inferior to our built-in saccades. I hate the GIFs on his pages, they're by far the worst thing on his site and why I don't reshare his otherwise very interesting analyses, because they're a crime against the reader.
It works well for some of the comparisons, but for others I would really prefer static shots so I can take my time examining each. Especially the GIFs that compare more than two sources, such as the ones that include Here and Bing as well as Google and Apple maps, where waiting for the GIF to cycle through all four images is annoying.
If the author is willing to implement it, those things some websites use that let the reader click the image or drag a sliding bar over it to compare might work better.
Regardless, I do appreciate the author's insights.
No, it doesn't. When you saccade normally, you can do so in milliseconds (it's the fastest movement your body is capable of making and is literally subconscious) repeatedly and freely. The GIF yanks away control, forcing you to wait through the slow arbitrary preset cycle, while distracting you reading anything else. And that's in the good case of just 2 frames, when it's 3 or 4, it's much worse, because now you have to sit through the cycle possibly several times just to figure out what each frame is labeled and only then can you begin comparing! Imagine how much more pleasant and easy to read and accessible and less headache-inducing this article would be if it followed a systematic approach of presenting 1-4 images side by side, Apple then Google then misc.
