It's a good alternative to Flash. I don't think people really advocate the effect as a replacement for normal scrolling paradigms. There are some specific cases where it might make sense to do it and it's great that those pages will no longer be forced into Flash.
> There are some specific cases where it might make sense to do it
Like when your client demands it and you give in?
I've used pageflip in the past and grew to abhor it. It's only quality is the cool factor, which we got over 6 years ago. I hate magazines that use it for their "digital" version.
There's also a reason it is used. A typical magazine layout does not translate well on an vertical scrolling page. This is one solution to a conversion problem. There's not always a "BEST" solution to that kind of thing. There are trade-offs no matter what you choose to do. However, providing different ways to view the same information is usually a good practice.
I wonder what is the "user" perspective on this. I am not sure everyone hates it - since it feels familiar in terms of structure.
I agree, but the trade-offs depend on your goals, and for each of those there is a best solution. If you want to provide a good reading experience on the web, you have to use appropriate layouts.
This isn't necessarily true. For instance, if A and B are each measurable characteristics of potential solutions and your goal values A and B equally, if all other characteristics of solutions X and Y are equal, but X={A:2, B:7, ...} and Y={A:7, B:2, ...}, then X and Y are equally "good" solutions according to your goal.
>Like when your client demands it and you give in?
Someone in this thread gave a great example: their company makes "photobooks" and this effect is used in the preview before you order to make it feel more "real". I think that's a legitimate use.
Obviously, magazines that just plaster pieces of the PDF on and then demand the page flip are not usable or accessible, but there are other uses for something like this.
Of course, using a paper simulator to showcase printed material makes complete sense :)
My comment was related to the (common) case where someone thinks this is the best way to adapt printed content to the web, and that people actually want virtual magazines instead of something suited to screen reading/interaction. Fortunately that appears to be a dying mindset.
There are still a lot of print-trained editors and other publishing roles out there. The more the UX metaphor relates to past models the more secure they are in their positions. I simply think this, along with a smidgen of gewgaw for the animation, is the simplest explanation. It's easier for a pageflip model to be approved by oldschoolers.
We've used a similar effect in a sales collateral portal. We have a bunch of PDF sales sheets, and small brochures. The client wanted sales reps to be able to preview the PDF in a more lightweight form, and the page turn helps visualize the printed layout a bit.
Yeah, this script reminded me of an old photo-flipbook program that wasy available a long time ago (I think for Windows 3.1x). At first the effect seemed "neat", but after browsing hundreds of photos with the same effect the novelty weared out and it became cumbersome.
> At first the effect seemed "neat", but after [repeated use] the novelty wore off and it became cumbersome
I find the same with virtually all animations on phones and other UIs. If it can show me what I want a smidgen quicker by not animating then it gets disabled.
