W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2016

Re: [css-animations] Should really a reversed animation use the reversed timing function?

From: Hr Gwea <hrg.wea@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 02:24:29 -0300
Message-ID: <CAE++px8WHxzi376Dj0mFo2y=wckMx7XKCG0sRMjhx=7-Z2xVdg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No, because then the animation wouldn't be playing in reverse.  It
> would be an animation with the values swapped.  While that's
> potentially useful, it's not a "reversed animation".
>

Yes, it's not a truly reversed animation. But, shouldn't the question be
what kind of reversal is more useful rather than sticking to the definition
of the word "reversed".

Whenever I've needed a reversed animation, what I really look for is the
same animation but in the opposite direction, not an exact reversed, so I
always end up using ease-in-out as the timing function because it plays the
same forward and backwards.
If I use any non-symmetric timing function, I get an undesired result.

May be there should be a way to specify what kind of reversal is desired.



> This should also be easy to do when we finally actually implement the
> "frames()" function that was proposed and generally liked a while ago.
> I've opened an issue <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/136>
> about it.
>

Interesting, this frames function seems a much more intuitive way for a
stepping transition between keyframes. It would makes things much easier.
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 05:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:03 UTC