4 ms·

Alice.js - (A Lightweight Independent CSS Engine)

60 points by jixxee 15y ago

timtadh 15y ago
I was really into this, until I ran into: It appears your browser does not support 8 of the CSS3 properties used by Alice.js. Please use a WebKit-based browser like Chrome, Safari or the PlayBook Browser. I could not figure out exactly what those properties are. I am running FF9a2 which should support pretty much everything Chrome does. The big thing FF lacked until 5 was the keyframe animations.[1][2][3] So not so useful to the world at large yet. It does look like a nice library otherwise. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/CSS_animations https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/CSS_animations [2] http://www.impressivewebs.com/css3-browser-support/ http://www.impressivewebs.com/css3-browser-support/ [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442
- rhizome31 15y ago
  This reminds of the "optimized for IE/Netscape" messages that were common in the 90's.
- binbasti 15y ago
  3D CSS transforms were only introduced in Firefox 10, so that would be a good guess.
  - obeattie 15y ago
    Note: Firefox 10 is still at least 12 weeks out: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_10 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_10
  - morsch 15y ago
    I get the same message in Firefox 10/Nightly.
kingsidharth 15y ago
So Flash effects come to CSS3. Good thing as a tech but I am still worried that these animations, and the @font-face devilry is going to be new "Big Web 2.0 Button" visual design disaster for design. These tools in wrong hands makes baby Jesus cry. But then again, this is designer perspective. But really glad to see this logical progress.
- pseudonimble 15y ago
  People can make very ugly websites now without CSS3, I don't think it's anything to worry about.
- tyler_ball 15y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. This site is a pretty good example of "wrong hands"—a bunch of RIM employees.
lbarrow 15y ago
This looks interesting and potentially useful, but that didn't stop the New York Times from making fun of it in this article about RIM: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/research-in-motion-pins-hopes-on-its-next-os.html?_r=1&hpw http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/research-in-mot...
- thisisblurry 15y ago
  The article only mentions the library in passing as a potential session. It's not taking a shot at Alice.js, it's taking a shot at RIM's failures with the PlayBook and current mobile devices.
maccman 15y ago
Also, in a similar vein, checkout GFX: http://maccman.github.com/gfx/ http://maccman.github.com/gfx/
ldhasson 15y ago
This is just V0.1. We actually hard-coded the check because the code explicitly targets -webkit-* CSS properties internaly. It's also a very small project, and testing for Chrome, iOS and BlackBerry devices already created a lot of work for us. This will definitely improve in future versions and should be a thing of the past by the time we hit our 1.0 milestone (no date on that yet sorry). As for the comment about design hell :) Yes, agreed. But when i see what has been done in Flash over the years, there has also been incredibly cool looking things done. That's worth that risk imho. @ldhasson

60 points by jixxee 15y ago

I was really into this, until I ran into: It appears your browser does not support 8 of the CSS3 properties used by Alice.js. Please use a WebKit-based browser like Chrome, Safari or the PlayBook Browser. I could not figure out exactly what those properties are. I am running FF9a2 which should support pretty much everything Chrome does. The big thing FF lacked until 5 was the keyframe animations.[1][2][3] So not so useful to the world at large yet. It does look like a nice library otherwise. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/CSS_animations https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/CSS_animations [2] http://www.impressivewebs.com/css3-browser-support/ http://www.impressivewebs.com/css3-browser-support/ [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442

rhizome31 15y ago
This reminds of the "optimized for IE/Netscape" messages that were common in the 90's.
binbasti 15y ago
3D CSS transforms were only introduced in Firefox 10, so that would be a good guess.
- obeattie 15y ago
  Note: Firefox 10 is still at least 12 weeks out: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_10 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_10
- morsch 15y ago
  I get the same message in Firefox 10/Nightly.

kingsidharth 15y ago

So Flash effects come to CSS3. Good thing as a tech but I am still worried that these animations, and the @font-face devilry is going to be new "Big Web 2.0 Button" visual design disaster for design. These tools in wrong hands makes baby Jesus cry. But then again, this is designer perspective. But really glad to see this logical progress.

pseudonimble 15y ago
People can make very ugly websites now without CSS3, I don't think it's anything to worry about.
tyler_ball 15y ago
I was thinking the same thing. This site is a pretty good example of "wrong hands"—a bunch of RIM employees.

lbarrow 15y ago

This looks interesting and potentially useful, but that didn't stop the New York Times from making fun of it in this article about RIM: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/research-in-motion-pins-hopes-on-its-next-os.html?_r=1&hpw http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/research-in-mot...

thisisblurry 15y ago
The article only mentions the library in passing as a potential session. It's not taking a shot at Alice.js, it's taking a shot at RIM's failures with the PlayBook and current mobile devices.

maccman 15y ago

Also, in a similar vein, checkout GFX: http://maccman.github.com/gfx/ http://maccman.github.com/gfx/

ldhasson 15y ago

This is just V0.1. We actually hard-coded the check because the code explicitly targets -webkit-* CSS properties internaly. It's also a very small project, and testing for Chrome, iOS and BlackBerry devices already created a lot of work for us. This will definitely improve in future versions and should be a thing of the past by the time we hit our 1.0 milestone (no date on that yet sorry). As for the comment about design hell :) Yes, agreed. But when i see what has been done in Flash over the years, there has also been incredibly cool looking things done. That's worth that risk imho. @ldhasson