To start off,
Some of these guys were tricker than I thought!
Made Some Wireframes
Good v. Bad
An example of a site I really enjoyed in terms of interaction was Snow Fall. This is actually an interactive article from the NY Times.
1. GIFs everywhere! The opening page was a very beautiful and subtle looping animation that did a really good job of setting the tone for the rest of the content.
2. Interactivity of images. Interspersed throughout the article were several animated maps that moves the reader through the space at their own pace while they scroll.
3. Side Content. There were several instances of content that was there simply to support the content of the article, but wasn’t necessarily the main focus. I think it could be nice to have extra things in an editorial site that you can choose to explore or not.
4. Scrolling + Click through helps the reader parse through the story. Separates the content into logical divisions.
5. Interactions in the text. There a few instances in the text where side content is activated once you get to a certain point, which adds a nice element of surprise.
An example of a site I thought was not so great was Babel the King.
1. Clunky Animation. There is a cat animation that is supposed to tumble down the page but it is not very smooth, and at times it was so slow to load that it would disappear altogether.
2. Type. The over abundance of handwritten type made the page feel overall a little too childish, which is strange since I’m pretty sure that it is meant to advertise.
3. Tone. Similarly, the tone for this site seems a bit all over the place, which makes it hard to want to engage with it.
4. Animation doesn’t follow page. The cat falls down the page as you scroll, yet when you scroll back up the page it remains in place, and you sort of lose touch with it.
5. It’s hard to tell at first glance what exactly his site is for. Is it a story? Is it an app? Is it just an advertisement? Who knows!