3 ms·
For what it is worth, it is often used on mobile and works pretty well there, I guess it is the same on web. The only downside I can think of : - you really n
by on_and_off 8y ago
For what it is worth, it is often used on mobile and works pretty well there, I guess it is the same on web.
The only downside I can think of :
- you really need to sit down with your animators and explain to them which effects they can use and which ones they need to avoid. Some manipulations will allocate a bitmap at each frame, it ends up very choppy
- some lottie json can take a while to read. In some cases we just handed up coding the animation by hand because it was not that complicated and better than to have to wait 1 or 2 seconds for it to load. It does not sounds that long, but it makes a big difference between immediately starting when your screen opens and starting with an empty screen then an animation blinks in.
- osrec 8y agoInteresting... I wonder if this signifies a gap in the market for a good web animation authoring tool that complies its animations to JavaScript? Personally, I've yet to discover a good, flexible tool for this purpose.
- avtar 8y agoRegarding the first downside you listed, would you say all the performance pitfalls are covered in the project’s documentation, elsewhere online, or did you become aware of them through trial and error?
- on_and_off 8y agoThey are mostly listed in the project documentation but if I remember correctly, you still needed to sit around with the animator and review the animation for the effects that would translate into something costly. Some are also trial and errors. Sometimes simple animations create jsons that take ages to load. If you can't preload them you might need to randomly tune the animation or go into the json yourself in order to end up with something more svelte.