W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-timing] reconsider name of frames() timing function

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:31:53 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-310134407-1498062712-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Sorry for the multiposts: a big reason I'm opposed to `steps()` as a name is exemplified perfectly by the final paragraph of <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1371#issue-228525559>:

> From a programming perspective all the graph examples should have a N value of 4 and a option describing the range, e.g. from top left: steps(4, openclosed), steps(4, closedopen), steps(4, open), steps(4, closed), but I know that would make no sense to a lot of designers.

The logic here is that all of them have four "steps", in the sense of distinct values that show up in the graph.  This understanding is encouraged by the name. But it doesn't match user expectation in any way - the animation has 2, 3, or 4 visible values expressed during the animation's duration, and so should be expressed with an argument of `2`, `3`, or `4`.  A name that is instead focused on the values themselves is a little better - I think `frames()` does this reasonably well, and would want something with a similar framing if we don't use `frames()` itself.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-310134407 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 16:31:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:30:34 UTC