There's obviously a lot of opportunity for abuse in this kind of thing - I'm reminded of custom scrollbars - but I think their shopping cart example is pretty compelling. As with everything, it needs to be used sparingly!
Thinkpad T430, Firefox under Linux — no lag. I don't think that moving a bitmap over the screen should be slow on 2010 hardware (well, even on 2000-ish hardware). Probably it's just so obscure that browser vendors don't notice / test for small performance regressions.
Ehh, it's an interesting Idea, not a big fan though to be honest. It's too striking and the cursors are huge. It will probably be like the next scroll tag, a way people can make shit appear in your face and it will just get abused.
Is there anything to suggest this actually improves user experience rather than just making it different?
This was an annoying javascript trick back in the 2000s, it still makes me ask "WTF" when I go to a Gawker blog, the only place I know that still trys this trick.
Do you have use cases (such as the contextual pointer/text cursor change) where it productive to change the cursor?
We would love to have used cursor: url(...); but in our testing you run into constraints (like sizing and rotation) that don't let you do the stuff we're doing here.
Oh god. Time is a flat circle, 90s are having a comeback, now this, tomorrow under construction gifs and faux 3D buttons in framesets.
The cringiest part is I do believe their usecase (huge annoying CLICK cursors over “buy now” buttons) just _might_ increase conversions enough to be worthwile.
This site triggered all kinds of old memories for me. Setting my cursor to be an X-Wing in Win95/98. VRML. That brief stretch of time when setting custom scrollbar styles for your site was considered cool.
The status bar! We should bring that back.
<table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Welcome to my website!</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
Firefox (I mean Phoenix, or is it Firebird?) being ultra slim and fast. I miss that.
And yeah, framesets. Oh man. I bet there are millions of lines of Javascript and CSS that exist solely because frames aren't hip.
I see a lot of comments taking this seriously. Is it actually serious? It looks like they're accepting real money, but I still have trouble believing it's meant to be taken seriously.
42 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadAnd I'm not sure if this really improves your UX, it feels annoying just like scrolljacking.
Do you have any data that shows it provides an increase in conversion etc?
This was an annoying javascript trick back in the 2000s, it still makes me ask "WTF" when I go to a Gawker blog, the only place I know that still trys this trick.
Do you have use cases (such as the contextual pointer/text cursor change) where it productive to change the cursor?
Secondly, if you insist on doing it, don't pay 5 bucks for it. It's just cursor: url(...);
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/cursor
I don't understand why one would want the image to rotate?
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by rotation.
The cringiest part is I do believe their usecase (huge annoying CLICK cursors over “buy now” buttons) just _might_ increase conversions enough to be worthwile.
The status bar! We should bring that back.
<table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Welcome to my website!</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
Firefox (I mean Phoenix, or is it Firebird?) being ultra slim and fast. I miss that.
And yeah, framesets. Oh man. I bet there are millions of lines of Javascript and CSS that exist solely because frames aren't hip.
"I was on the fence about paying these guys $200/mo for their SaaS product, until I saw that their cursor was a rocketship"
Unless you're building a website for children, I'd be very, very wary of this.
We knew that this was a bad idea in 2002, so I don't know why anyone would think that we'd change our mind now.