Disney Principles Are For Character Motion, Not For Chrome

This is a REAL and deliberately preserved tension in the corpus, and the resolution is scope, not a winner. animations-impeccable-no-bounce-easing bans overshoot outright — any cubic-bezier whose control points leave the [-0.1, 1.1] band — and it is right about the surface it is talking about: a dropdown that wobbles, a toast that springs past its mark, a menu that squashes on open reads as dated on first sight and as broken by the fiftieth, because those elements are chrome the user operates, not characters the user watches.

LottieFiles is not contradicting that; it is talking about a different object. Disney's vocabulary was built for CHARACTERS — things with implied mass, personality and intent — and it survives on the web wherever that is still true: a mascot, an illustration, an empty-state figure, a confetti burst, a success celebration, an onboarding moment seen once. And LottieFiles scopes it itself, which is the tell: squash-and-stretch says "Skip for premium/luxury brands", anticipation says "Skip for micro-feedback (<150ms)" — which is nearly every button and hover in a product — and its own exaggeration budget drops to 0-5% for Corporate and 0% for Premium, i.e. to exactly the flat, no-overshoot motion the impeccable rule demands.

So the operative question is never "is bounce allowed" but "is this thing a character or a control". Controls: ease-out, no overshoot, done. Characters, once per session: anticipate, overshoot, follow through — that is where the charm lives, and refusing it there buys you nothing. animations-emil-subtle-bounce marks the one genuine middle ground (bounce 0.1–0.3, reserved for drag-to-dismiss, where the user's own thrown gesture has already established momentum, so the mass is real rather than asserted).