Re: [motion-path] More natural names for 'auto' and 'reverse'

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:42 PM Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2015-06-22 9:47 GMT+03:00 Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>:
> > I think this is so that you *can* move the motion path if you need to. If
> > motion came first then you'd need to resort to nested divs or similar.
>
> I think the translate, rotate, and scale properties were designed to
> help authors to write the most common use cases easily, not to provide
> more flexibility.
>
> To rotate and scale an object along a motion path is a very common use.
>
> Also, I think this can happen a lot: I have animated an object with
> translate, rotate and scale and then later want to switch from a
> simple translate animation to a fancy motion path animation. I can’t
> simply change the translate property to a motion property. Instead, I
> need to create a wrapper div for the motion property.
>

Or you can move the rotation and scale to the transform property.

It's like this, I think:
* translate, rotate and scale provide a simple way to just put the element
where you want it on the screen. They don't interfere with each other.
* motion path extends the animateMotion ideas from SVG into CSS.

Using them together is never going to be a simple use case. On the other
hand, for the advanced use case of combining motion paths with animations,
you get *slightly* more utility from having the path sandwiched in the
middle.


> I just think that these are common use cases which should be made
> easy. After all, one of the main purposes of CSS Transform Module
> Level 2 is to make authoring easier: "authors no longer have to
> remember the ordering of these transform functions" [1].
>

Yes, for the simple case of just placing an element where you want it to
be. Not in combination with motion-path.


>
> >> Also, should 'motion-rotation’ be 'motion-rotate' to match ’rotate’?
> >> Will the different ways to name things be confusing?
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think it probably should. I'll update it along with any other
> changes
> > that come out of this thread.
>
> On the other hand, property names are supposed to be nouns. If the
> motion property won’t include the rotation angle, then maybe
> ‘motion-rotation’ is ok, since it won’t have such a strong association
> with 'rotate’ anymore. Or maybe call it something completely
> different, like ‘motion-orientation’ with values ’none’ and ‘path’.
> Well, I don’t know.. :)
>

As mentioned elsewhere, I don't think it can lose the rotation angle as
animation from auto to reverse becomes harder.

Cheers,
    -Shane


>
> BR,
> Kari
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0315.html
>