Nice work! On my PC (linux, firefox 1.5), the animation.js version is *much* snappier.
On 4/15/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Firefox 2.0, OSX, both animations perform roughly the same, yahoo being little bit smoother. But the size difference makes animator better pick i think. Also this is not the general use-case for animations imho :) -Matej On 4/15/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > I've been working for a while now on an animated homepage for wicket > (not that we *have* to use it, it is a gimmick), and it was originally > based on animate.js (the proposed animation library). I also converted > it to yahoo animation (which is quite similar), and this way we can > see the differences between the two (peformance, API, etc). > > You can see the difference between the two libs here: > > http://people.apache.org/~dashorst/animation/animator.html > http://people.apache.org/~dashorst/animation/yahoo.html > > If you want to see the difference between rendering engines: I found > that firefox has the best javascript support for these animations. > Safari runs at a snails pace (I had to tweak the animation for that to > make it run faster). > > Lessons learned: > - animate.js is a really nice and powerful library > - yahoo animation gives similar results, and has a bit better > animation management > - safari sucks performance wise for javascript > - the api for yahoo and animate is strikingly similar, with just a > couple of differences > > I haven't tested this with IE so that may be completely broken. > > Martijn > > -- > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > http://wicketframework.org >
