- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 07:26:41 -0500
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Message-ID: <CADC=+jf_pzEuy6pG5FSsVPnCix2S-vuas++f4m1yVsywer-NnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Regardless of nice editor ui, I like what jon and francois are saying if I have to do it by hand. On Feb 5, 2012 7:10 AM, "Simon Fraser" <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Daniel Glazman > > <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > >> Le 03/02/12 15:54, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > >>> I meant make up some reasonable defaults *for the purpose of > >>> previewing*. You even suggest that perhaps 1s would be a good default > >>> duration. Just use that in your preview to show the general effects > >>> of the keyframes while people are editting them. > >> > >> You understand that from a UX point of view, having 0s animations > >> look like 1s animations is a catastrophe ? > >> > >> Similarly, all animations that will run with an animation-delay > >> that is not set in the rule setting animation-name > >> will appear starting at 0s... Urgh. > >> > >> I perfectly understand the compromise you're proposing, and I am > >> saying this compromise is here to save a technical change at the > >> cost of editability and UX. Given the importance of CSS 3 Animations, > >> I think editability is a too major feature to go that way. > >> > >> I'd love to hear from Apple people here. > > > > You're in charge of the editor. You can, *when people are editting > > the 'animation' property*, preview the actual duration/delay/etc > > they're using at that point, and even call out a 0s duration as "you > > probably didn't mean to do that". Just use the defaults when you're > > previewing the @keyframes rule specifically. > > > > Even if you bake default durations into the @keyframes rule, people > > can change it at the point of use. It seems like the same argument > > for why this is bad would apply. > > I agree with Tab. It seems like your editor is trying to impose a timeline > structure on something that doesn't have one. If your tool is > all-encompassing > (meaning that the author uses it to control what JS runs when, and > therefore > when the "dynamic" style gets applied), then the problem goes away because > you know when the animation is going to run. > > If you replace animation-* with some other property with a shorthand, like > border-*, > why is the problem different? > > Simon > > >
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 12:27:18 UTC