5 ms·

Why all the hate? It's not like you have to use these everywhere just because they exist. The fact that it's possible is good to know as one day it might be a g

by blowski 10y ago

Why all the hate? It's not like you have to use these everywhere just because they exist. The fact that it's possible is good to know as one day it might be a good solution for a problem I'm facing, and then I'll be happy that it exists. A couple of use cases I can think of: * Attracting attention to options in a demo * A game for kids, or otherwise 'wacky' pages If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals.

720kb 10y ago
Holy words, thanks.
- blowski 10y ago
  Good demo, by the way, though I might suggest: * making it more obvious that it's a CSS-only solution (which is a very good thing) * showing how to add them - i.e. you just include a CSS file and add a class to the label * show which browsers are supported, including touchscreens And possibly a feature request: can you animate as an event? For example, I might want to draw attention to a radio element without checking it.
  - 720kb 10y ago
    Hi, thanks for the suggestions, all very smart. For events what do you mean? You could always trigger checked by javascript or jquery or whatever :)
    - blowski 10y ago
      So I could so something like: $('.focus').prop('checked', true); But if I wanted to attract attention to the radio box, the only way of animating it with this library would be to check it, and that might cause problems if I've got listeners for the 'change' event. So if I could just do something like: $('.focus').addClass('bounce'); that would be nice.
      - 720kb 10y ago
        Oh, understood what you mean, you could use the animation name, it's included in the CSS files. Just: .my-class{ animation: boing 2s etc...}
  - qaq 10y ago
    Pointing out it's not 720kb in size :)
    - 720kb 10y ago
      Fortunately i'd say ;P
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
creshal 10y ago
> Why all the hate? It's not like you have to use these everywhere just because they exist. I do, because I can guarantee that some self-proclaimed web designer will use them for absolutely no reason at all. > The fact that it's possible is good to know as one day it might be a good solution for a problem I'm facing, and then I'll be happy that it exists. This argument is so useless. "Well maybe someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody can come up with any examples, but maybe." > Attracting attention to options in a demo None of the effects are really useful for that. Apart from them being too wacky ("did something break?"), anything transitive is bad for that anyway, because what if the user gets distracted for the split-second your animation runs? Fade in some persistent element for that. > If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. Command-line tools are popular for a reason: They get shit done, and don't distract people with useless crap.
- blowski 10y ago
  The internet consists of a lot more than business forms. I would be frustrated if I saw bouncing radio boxes when applying for a passport, but if I was playing a game or using a demo for a non-critical service, then I'd quite like them. If a designer mis-uses them... well that's the designer's fault. People mis-use hammers, but it makes no sense to blame the hammer. Some people do like to see 'useless crap' on some websites, and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
  - 720kb 10y ago
    Indeed, totally agree, every project is a self story, nobody has the rights or the expertise to say it's useless or good or bad, because what is bad for me could be good for you and viceversa.
vacri 10y ago
> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. I'd wager that there are more developers scared of the commandline than are comfortable with it.
- blowski 10y ago
  Yes, I should have said 'some developers'. Suggesting all developers believe a certain thing is a massive over-generalisation.
- swampthinker 10y ago
  Now, yes. But you only have to turn the clock back a decade or three to find most devs were comfortable with the command line.
- edoceo 10y ago
  It's those grey beards! #ageism
IshKebab 10y ago
> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use That's basically what AMP and Facebook Pages are. They're far nicer to browse on mobile than 'unrestricted' news sites. Still, I agree these have valid uses.
coldpie 10y ago
> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. Be still, my beating heart ;)
notyourwork 10y ago
Finally someone with an open mind. Its not about what is practical, it is about what is possible. Take what is possible and decide what is practical for your use case.
gambler 10y ago
Because we're traumatized by bouncing pie charts, video backgrounds and parallax scrolling? Many people are eventually forced to use or worse - implement websites with stuff like this even when they really don't want to. Also, because flashy web gimmics receive disproportionate amount of attention compared to less glamorous but practical concepts. Even here, on an ostensibly technical website.

by blowski 10y ago

720kb 10y ago

Holy words, thanks.

blowski 10y ago
Good demo, by the way, though I might suggest: * making it more obvious that it's a CSS-only solution (which is a very good thing) * showing how to add them - i.e. you just include a CSS file and add a class to the label * show which browsers are supported, including touchscreens And possibly a feature request: can you animate as an event? For example, I might want to draw attention to a radio element without checking it.
- 720kb 10y ago
  Hi, thanks for the suggestions, all very smart. For events what do you mean? You could always trigger checked by javascript or jquery or whatever :)
  - blowski 10y ago
    So I could so something like: $('.focus').prop('checked', true); But if I wanted to attract attention to the radio box, the only way of animating it with this library would be to check it, and that might cause problems if I've got listeners for the 'change' event. So if I could just do something like: $('.focus').addClass('bounce'); that would be nice.
    - 720kb 10y ago
      Oh, understood what you mean, you could use the animation name, it's included in the CSS files. Just: .my-class{ animation: boing 2s etc...}
- qaq 10y ago
  Pointing out it's not 720kb in size :)
  - 720kb 10y ago
    Fortunately i'd say ;P
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

creshal 10y ago

> Why all the hate? It's not like you have to use these everywhere just because they exist. I do, because I can guarantee that some self-proclaimed web designer will use them for absolutely no reason at all. > The fact that it's possible is good to know as one day it might be a good solution for a problem I'm facing, and then I'll be happy that it exists. This argument is so useless. "Well maybe someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody can come up with any examples, but maybe." > Attracting attention to options in a demo None of the effects are really useful for that. Apart from them being too wacky ("did something break?"), anything transitive is bad for that anyway, because what if the user gets distracted for the split-second your animation runs? Fade in some persistent element for that. > If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. Command-line tools are popular for a reason: They get shit done, and don't distract people with useless crap.

blowski 10y ago
The internet consists of a lot more than business forms. I would be frustrated if I saw bouncing radio boxes when applying for a passport, but if I was playing a game or using a demo for a non-critical service, then I'd quite like them. If a designer mis-uses them... well that's the designer's fault. People mis-use hammers, but it makes no sense to blame the hammer. Some people do like to see 'useless crap' on some websites, and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
- 720kb 10y ago
  Indeed, totally agree, every project is a self story, nobody has the rights or the expertise to say it's useless or good or bad, because what is bad for me could be good for you and viceversa.

vacri 10y ago

> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. I'd wager that there are more developers scared of the commandline than are comfortable with it.

blowski 10y ago
Yes, I should have said 'some developers'. Suggesting all developers believe a certain thing is a massive over-generalisation.
swampthinker 10y ago
Now, yes. But you only have to turn the clock back a decade or three to find most devs were comfortable with the command line.
edoceo 10y ago
It's those grey beards! #ageism

IshKebab 10y ago

> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use That's basically what AMP and Facebook Pages are. They're far nicer to browse on mobile than 'unrestricted' news sites. Still, I agree these have valid uses.

coldpie 10y ago

> If we restricted web browsers to what developers think we should use, we'd still be using plain green text on black terminals. Be still, my beating heart ;)

notyourwork 10y ago

Finally someone with an open mind. Its not about what is practical, it is about what is possible. Take what is possible and decide what is practical for your use case.

gambler 10y ago

Because we're traumatized by bouncing pie charts, video backgrounds and parallax scrolling? Many people are eventually forced to use or worse - implement websites with stuff like this even when they really don't want to. Also, because flashy web gimmics receive disproportionate amount of attention compared to less glamorous but practical concepts. Even here, on an ostensibly technical website.