W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

From: Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:42:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPFA0t0AmJAv86p83VPA-JJAUA9n33qcDs1zBu_ABNdEscwpPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
I'm on the road right now so replies are slow! The animation slack has a
WAAPI and CSS channel this discussion is perfect for.

As for why "discrete" isn't working for me: it's an general adjective that
doesn't describe what the action is so much as color it with personality.
It had to be tacked onto "steps" to make sense. You could remove the word
from the sentence and the behavior is still perfectly described. It could
literally be any adjective: polite, judicious, egalitarian. Discrete means
subtle or out of the way. Steps are steps. They don't have any of the
qualities these adjectives suggest (unless we include "useful" ;),
especially if you think about how this would read to someone whose second
language is English.

I'm sure we can find a succinct word. What is the opposite of continual?
Besides "staggered" ;) I'll start: divided, consecutive.

(Hmm. Split and chunk are still my favorites.)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:43 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 1) as an animator discrete makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know
> > where I'd begin explaining it to a student or a fellow animation wonk.
> Vote
> > down.
>
> I'm actually super-curious about why this doesn't make sense to you.
> How does saying "the animation happens in discrete steps, rather than
> a continuous change" feel to you?
>
> > 4) I encourage this conversation to happen with the animation community
> at
> > slack.animationatwork.com
>
> Definitely. I keep forgetting to sign up for that, done now. ^_^
>
> > 5) Otherwise and I light of #3 above, might I suggest chunk(x)? As often
> > this behavior is described as "taking and animation and splitting it into
> > even chunks"
> >
> > 6) oh hey, maybe split(x)...
>
> Yeah, these aren't bad imo.  Definitely ones to put on the list.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 05:43:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 10 March 2016 05:43:18 UTC