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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:42:05 +0200
Message-ID: <19391.37149.295044.74767@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper wrote:

 > > "transform" is much more than "move". It encompasses translation,  
 > > scale, rotate, skew, perspective, combinations of those and even a  
 > > few interesting transformations that can't be represented by those  
 > > primitives. As for "transform" being too close to "translation", I  
 > > don't share your confusion and I think it would be a mistake to  
 > > change the name to something less descriptive because they look a  
 > > bit close to you. Just look at them for a while, you'll get used to  
 > > it :-)
 > Sorry. I meant to say 'translate', not 'transform'. This probably  
 > proves a point of some kind.

It does. We see it all the time, even in the CSS WG meeting where
people have been looking at this for a while.

I think transitions will be a big hit, they will change the web. We
have the power to give it a likable name. The name we give it will
aquire the meaning we want.

One example: "margin". In traditional typography, it wouldn't be
accurate to refer to the "margin between paragraps" -- a margin is
traditionally the space that surrounds the content of a page. Still,
the term has worked well in CSS, and all elements have margins around
them. I don't think people have been confused.

There are several good alternatives to 'transition':

   shift: left 1s;
   change: left 1s; 
   flux: left 1s;
   phase: left 1s;

E.g., "CSS shifts" is a marketable term.

              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 20:42:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:34 UTC