its clearly a hardware flaw if you're having problems with your internet navigation buddy
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right, I'll buy a new PC so I can fully enjoy jQuery animations... > So out of place.... > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Thiago Cruz Santos < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> imo there is no need to disable animation due to performance issues, i >> mean a browser its a program just like any other, if your photoshop is >> running slow why would you care about running a "low-res" version of it? you >> would just upgrade your pc or use fireworks or something. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think this is wrong. >>> What if I get into a page, while a have a lot of programs running on >>> my fast computer... >>> I get a cookie that says "you're slow", so I get to see mediocre >>> animations for good (until the cookie is cleaned) just because I had >>> some overhead once. >>> >>> I think we could make a plugin that overwrites the animation system, >>> making it lite. Then if a dev is interested, the page can provide a >>> link that reads "low quality version" or something like that. This >>> does set a cookie and loads the plugin for successive page loads. >>> >>> The "lite" version of animation could simply make any animation >>> synchronous (instantaneous). >>> >>> Actually... now that I say this. We could have a boolean flag like : >>> $.fx.sync = true; >>> That makes all future animations have 0 speed AND we make 0 speed >>> anims sync. This is simple, totally doable. >>> The dev is in charge of setting that flag when desired. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> -- >>> Ariel Flesler >>> http://flesler.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> On Oct 8, 3:42 am, "markus.staab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > i think this would be a nice approach.. the result of this "benchmark" >>> > could be stored in a cookie and wouldn't have a big impact on every >>> > pageload.... >>> > >>> > On 7 Okt., 22:56, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Maybe run an invisble but expensive animation and check how many >>> steps >>> > > are actually rendered, eg. animate an element for 100px for 100ms and >>> > > check how often the step-callback is actually called for that >>> > > animation. Anything below a certain threshold is considered too slow. >>> > >>> > > Jörn >>> > >>> > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > How would you detect if someone is on a slower machine? (Just >>> curious) >>> > >>> > > > But yes, it was discussed recently that passing in an animation >>> speed >>> > > > of 0 might have that effect. Another good side effect is that >>> > > > animations can be disabled for accessibility reasons (e.g. people >>> who >>> > > > have extreme motion sickness). >>> > >>> > > > --John >>> > >>> > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Florin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > >> Hi, >>> > >>> > > >> Animations and special effects (like fadeIn/fadeOut) are very >>> nice, >>> > > >> but on slower computers they don't look so good and are a serious >>> > > >> performance issue. >>> > >>> > > >> Would you consider an option to disable the animations? >>> > >>> > > >> For instance, any call to animate() would just set the >>> corresponding >>> > > >> final CSS and call the callback, without animating through the >>> > > >> intermediate steps ? >>> > >>> > > >> Any workarounds which don't require changing the code a lot ? >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Ariel Flesler > http://flesler.blogspot.com > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
