3 ms·
As much as I love CSS, I could never see myself using any of this technology because jQuery (and many other JS frameworks) can do this with less code, simpler s
by atacrawl 15y ago
As much as I love CSS, I could never see myself using any of this technology because jQuery (and many other JS frameworks) can do this with less code, simpler syntax and more browser coverage.
- jlind 15y agoAgreed. I noticed that the sidebar with css was animated with jQuery anyways. I still thought it was an interesting proof of concept though.
- duopixel 15y agoYou'd need a bunch of callbacks to chain the animations in jQuery, plus the cost of including the library. The Smashing Magazine article is not using the shorthand declarations for -webkit-animation, which would compact it much more. Give it a spin, you will be pleasantly surprised, especially when it comes to tiggering the animation (with :hover). You are right that browser coverage is a joke, but support is there in FF Aurora (who knows about IE10).
- lukifer 15y agoSee also: the Firmin plugin, which abstracts away CSS transitions with clean Javascript APIs: http://extralogical.net/projects/firmin/ http://extralogical.net/projects/firmin/ (Alas, it does not yet do automatic jQuery fallback.) Though I love jQuery.animate(), it just can't match the GPU-rendering speed on CSS3 transitions and animations. If you can afford the development time, it's absolutely worth it.