W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Agenda, 1 October 2015 SVG WG telcon

From: Bob Hopgood <frahopgood@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:47:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+52mcFAjSXTSYnra7a6M-aXb5bZL4pwjw31BKt7zh2cEiDt5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org
I agree with Jelle re the ease of teaching animated graphics via SVG's
animate/set/animateTransform elements.

On a Masters Course at Oxford Brookes, the students really enjoyed the
coursework  involving the production of a Postman Pat animated film. Each
year his mode of transport changed  (van, boat, aeroplane etc). They got a
good grasp of the basics of computer graphics that they found  much more
rewarding due to it being animated.

CSS is much more difficult to teach. The cascading/inheritance/importance
model is quite confusing. Frivolous CSS transitions would not be anywhere
near as effective at motivating students.

The sentence "Dynamic document content can be achieved via declarative
animation or by scripts modifying the SVG DOM" needs to be changed. The
phrase 'dynamic document content' is confusing. Nothing in CSS involves
'content', it is just styling. The word 'dynamic' has so many
meanings that it is meaning less (a person positive in attitude, a force
that stimulates change, etc).

The only sensible way to produce declarative animated content with fine
timing control is using SVG's animate/set/animateTransform elements. I
would not try to generate this animation, for example:
http://www.content-animation.org.uk/iw3c2_logos/2015_florence/florence_opening.htm
"
any other way.

Bob Hopgood
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:03 UTC