Why is it "curious"? It's a direct consequence of attempting to emulate how non-rigid bodies (including people) move in the real world.

For a contrast of what happens when there's no squash and stretch in animation, take a look at pretty much everything ever made by Hanna-Barbera before 1990. Everything remains almost pathologically on-model all the time to reduce animation costs.

Most rigid things do not snap and stretch. Phones, paper, books.

People will act that way. Some things will compress. Certainly not all things, though. So, is curious if it is always seen as better.

But, in animated media, "people" can include things like phones, papers, and books.

Apologies for missing this. I took the claim to mean not just animated movies, but animations of our devices. I am specifically remembering the silly animation that ubuntu used to have where a window would shimmer and shake as you moved it around. Or how it will "pop" onto the corner of the screen.

Windows that are flimsy are just annoying to me, which is why I would find the view that they are quality curious.

More realistic animation is typically described as more realistic. Not "popping and snappy."