Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

I was in the discussion and also approve. Voting. And I'd suggest frames(1) be a 50% value. Like frames(1) with blue and red would be a purple value. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > nexii, in the WAAPI Slack, suggested frames(). I liked it when I heard it, > and after thi

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

nexii, in the WAAPI Slack, suggested frames(). I liked it when I heard it, and after thinking about it overnight, I like it even more. frames(N) translates directly - it means "split this animation into N frames". The "frame" terminology is common enough that the metaphor should be readily unders

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

Wow spellchecker even kept turning discrete into discreet. On the bright side: I learned a new word :) [image: photo] *Rachel Nabors* Web Animation Engineer w:rachelnabors.com

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Rachel Nabors wrote: > I'm on the road right now so replies are slow! The animation slack has a > WAAPI and CSS channel this discussion is perfect for. > > As for why "discrete" isn't working for me: it's an general adjective that > doesn't describe what the action

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

I'm on the road right now so replies are slow! The animation slack has a WAAPI and CSS channel this discussion is perfect for. As for why "discrete" isn't working for me: it's an general adjective that doesn't describe what the action is so much as color it with personality. It had to be tacked on

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Rachel Nabors wrote: > 1) as an animator discrete makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know > where I'd begin explaining it to a student or a fellow animation wonk. Vote > down. I'm actually super-curious about why this doesn't make sense to you. How does say

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

1) as an animator discrete makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know where I'd begin explaining it to a student or a fellow animation wonk. Vote down. 2) stagger has a meaning closer to "sequence" with people using libraries like GSAP: http://greensock.com/stagger For clarity among the people

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On 2016/03/09 8:59, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: If we think the back-compat isn't bad, tho, I do like this the best. We'd then get to add a "step" keyword, too, which is a shorthand for "steps(1)", and gives the default "non-animatable value" behavior. I couldn't work out how to search GitHub for thi

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:29 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > Another possibility, working from the idea that steps(N, start/end) > is pretty broken and this is generally the desired way to do > multiple steps (i.e., not step-start and step-end which are a single > step) is that this function with equal

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

Another possibility, working from the idea that steps(N, start/end) is pretty broken and this is generally the desired way to do multiple steps (i.e., not step-start and step-end which are a single step) is that this function with equal steps could simply be: steps(N) with no second argument at a

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Brian Birtles wrote: > On 2012/12/21 3:46, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday 2012-12-19 10:29 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: I propose another steps value: step-mid. It splits the animation

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On 2016/03/09 7:24, Rachel Nabors wrote: I was thinking of "steps(5, equal)" when discussing this syntax, as an expansion of the steps() formula. I think it looks sensible, if that's possible? Works for me. "start" and "end" refer to where the step takes place, while "equal" doesn't but actua

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

I was thinking of "steps(5, equal)" when discussing this syntax, as an expansion of the steps() formula. I think it looks sensible, if that's possible? On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:00 PM Brian Birtles wrote: > On 2012/12/21 3:46, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM, L. David Bar

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

On 2012/12/21 3:46, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote: On Wednesday 2012-12-19 10:29 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: I propose another steps value: step-mid. It splits the animation curve into n segments, makes the first n-1 do step-end behavior, and leav