W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:46:23 -0700
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <67C994D1-D9F2-4D62-AD29-18542733C584@me.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:25 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> 
>>> 2b) 
>>> foo { 
>>> 	position:static; 
>>> 	transition: position 1s / bounce 1s; 
>>> }
>>> foo:hover { position:relative; }
>> 
>> I don't undertand how this example works. How does it make 'bounce' be
>> played on hovering and un-hovering? Are you using the change in the
>> 'position' property as a dummy just to trigger some change?
> 
> Yes. Since the non-zero rounds to one, the position should change to "relative' within one "frame" or millisecond or whatever after transition begins, thus allowing the 'transition-animation' (the part after the slash) to move.
> 
> At least, that's the theory. I could have done the same thing a transition between opacity:1 and opacity:0.999, or something else which would not be noticeable by a human.

Changing opacity from 1 to something less than 1 can have very obvious side effects: because opacity creates stacking context, itcan change the layering of elements on the page.

> But that seemed more likely to illicit charges of being too-hackish, which I will probably now receive anyway.

It's hackish  :)

I think we need to avoid a proposal that forces authors to fake a transition in order to get an animation effect.

Simon
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 17:47:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT