3 ms·
doesn't the quadratic timing function pretty much simulate gravity given the right coefficient, and i suppose pixel pitch? http://themeforest.s3.amazonaws.com/
by leeoniya 14y ago
doesn't the quadratic timing function pretty much simulate gravity given the right coefficient, and i suppose pixel pitch?
http://themeforest.s3.amazonaws.com/74_jquery/jquerygravitysource/index.html http://themeforest.s3.amazonaws.com/74_jquery/jquerygravitys...
- taybenlor 14y agoThe problem isn't in timing functions. It appears whenever the "distance" involved in a transition is dynamic (rather than specified by the designer/developer).
- leeoniya 14y agoa bit related, i remember a couple years ago complaining that jquery's "slow" and "fast" as shorthands for preset durations was misleading because when animating on a wide screen, "slow" ends up being quite fast compared to a narrow screen width. you are never really defining the animation rate, as was implied. this is of course due to the fact that everything is based on a fixed duration being passed into the supplied easing function.
- bumeye 14y agoExactly. In a certain way, you could call jQuery UI effects a very limited physics engine. I don't think the author is saying everyone should use a physics engine now. I think he means that we should use real-world physics as a guide to making more realistic animations, be it with a simple effects library or a full-fledged physics engine.