Why 300ms Isn’t Always the Right Answer
Jan 27, 2026
interaction
musings
While experimenting with transition states and running usability sessions with a commercial audience, I noticed a consistent pattern: designers often enjoy “delightful” transitions, but people doing repeatable tasks every day can find them frustrating. When you’re moving quickly, even a nice animation can start to feel like it’s in the way.
That pushed me to think about interface components differently — not all UI should be treated the same. Every component sits somewhere on a spectrum: some interactions need to be highly functional and near-instant, while others can afford to be more breathable moments where motion adds polish and personality.
For this card, the first version used a 300ms transition (a common baseline for micro-interactions), with the description text sliding up from the bottom. It looked elegant, but in a repetitive workflow it started to feel slightly draggy — like the UI was asking the user to wait.
In the updated version below, I adjusted the starting position and introduced an opacity fade so the front card appears sooner, while still keeping that sense of refinement. I also reduced the overall timing so the interaction feels responsive first, and decorative second.
Perceived speed matters more than exact speed. The opacity + earlier entrance works because it gives instant feedback. Even if the full animation finishes later, users feel like the system responded immediately.