I think there is also space in the middle for valid critique of gratuitous motion design. Hiding latenecy with a cute animation is fun the first time you do it.

I think there is also space in the middle for valid critique of gratuitous motion design. Hiding latenecy with a cute animation is fun the first time you do it. By the 100th time, it's usually just slow. I regularly out-pace guis. For example, the simple task of using google maps to go to work in the morning. This task is visually spread out with time-slowing animations that require constant active participation. It is like 5 taps made excrutiatingly long by the fact that my car is parked just far enough away from my home that wifi cuts out and the phone has to aquire 4g. Compare to Waze (also owned by Google) one tap, swipe and dialogs auto continue without needing to be "fed". I love animation and motion graphics, but I've seen many motion devs fall into the trap of "oh this is so cool, but they won't see it unless I make it a bit longer" -- and unfortunately most of the JS animation frameworks do not encourage async interaction, so interaction phases are often held hostage to the animation cycles. In these cases, I think motion design is rightly considered wasteful and not delightful.