Re: Request for Comments: Proposal for Touch-Based Animation Scrubbing

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> At this point in time, I'll second this sentiment; should the recent poll
> be run again I wonder where this would land. There are so many things
> people write script for that could be done declaratively. The value of
> doing so is, however, very unevenly distributed.

I knew I should have objected harder to the prioritization poll. I
*knew* it would be used for stop energy, and it's been doing just that
for a little while already.

It was stated, early and emphatically, that the prio list was *solely*
for the purpose of helping us answer, with a smidge of objectivity,
which things we should talk about *in telcons and meetings, when we
have too much to discuss in the time available*.  I and other people
(dbaron, I think?) were concerned that it would be used to shut down
work on "low priority" things, and we were assured that it would not
be.  Surprise surprise!

> In fairness I am certainly not opposed to CSS work in the general areas of
> scrolling, panning or zooming; we did plenty of that for Windows 8 and it resulted
> in new CSS properties [1] e.g. to specify 'snap points' when panning through a bunch
> of images or other elements (which slightly overlaps with some of your scenarios).
> These features proved quite useful in building good experiences - especially for
> touch users - and they likely perform orders of magnitude better than whatever
> could be scripted to emulate them. So I agree there are declarative steps we can
> take to make it easier to build good touch interactions; but we could and imo should
> start with simpler, broadly usable solutions before moving on to more elaborate
> effects where developers control every millisecond of what happens.

Could you explain how my proposal falls into "elaborate effects where
developers control every millisecond of what happens"?  Again, if you
don't think the effects I listed in Prior Art and similar common
effects are *worthwhile* to address, that's fine.  But my proposal is
not elaborate or complicated - if you ignore the momentum/snap points
part, it's literally *two properties*, and one of those is just to
hook things together.

(We should definitely make sure that the snap points/momentum stuff is
consistent between this and normal scrolling.  Let's get on that
Scrolling module, Sylvain!)

~tJ

Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 22:55:10 UTC