On Nov 13, 2007 4:38 PM, Matthew Allum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was a demo to test the clutter API and essentially see how far we > could push things and how long completely copying something like > coverflow would take. We're kind of wooses when it comes to making it > public-ally available as it is such a blatant and exact copy of Apples > cover flow. Its unclear if it patented but we dont want to attract the > wrong kind of attention and ultimately though it looks and acts very > cool its just a boring unoriginal 'me too' rip off. >
Having tried myself to replicate coverflow first completely from scratch and lately using clutter, I would qualify the experience as a great test of the abilities and ease of use of an advanced 2.5D and animation toolkit. Indeed implementing a coverflow-like browser with _all_ the little subtleties that are present in the Apple implementation stresses many things: - the animations are not as simple as one's may think at first sight because cover flipping motions adapt (duration and motion) depending on how many covers are being flipped at a time. - all the animations need to be interruptible (for maximum reactivity when the user decides to go backward). This is something clutter doesn't really ease atm. I'm trying to see if I can come up with some general API for this. - At least on the mobile version of Coverflow, the shelf of covers reacts with some inertia. Stresses some basic physics capabilities. - with several thousands of covers, loading times can become quite long and texture memory fills up quickly. I guess all these things might be encountered in many other non-standard UI, Now to what extent the toolkit need to help for these ? regards, Christophe -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
