21 Jun
2011
21 Jun
'11
7:51 p.m.
Piotr Przybylski a écrit :
2011/6/16 Marc Delisle <marc(a)infomarc.info>fo>:
Piotr,
'slide' instead of 'clip' seems to work well.
--
Marc Delisle
http://infomarc.info
Piotr Przybylski a écrit :
After looking at it closely, I realized what bothers me in this case -
'clip' effect looks like two animations mixed up due to hidden panel
being vertically centered - 'blind' and moving it at the same time,
making it impossible to focus on what is being shown. Plain 'blind'
would be the best, but is painfully slow due to reflows of all content
below, so maybe a 'blind' that reserves space for box in the same way
as 'clip' does (so that content below it is moved only once).
2011/6/16 Rouslan Placella
<rouslan(a)placella.com>om>:
Piotr,
feel free to suggest another animation.
Hi there,
I've added some animations to the routines functionalities in my branch
and I'm just looking for your opinions about this. A demo video is
available on my site [1]. Please let me know if you think that it's too
much eye-candy or if you think that it's OK. I didn't check this into my
repo yet and I'm keeping the code in my git-stash.
Personally, I don't
like the table jumping up and down. Moving objects
attract attention, especially if a large part of the screen moves, and
in this case it looks like an effect done because it can be done.
Space above Routines table should expand / contract to proper height
in one move - it it needs two, then the effect stops looking nice, it
becomes annoying.
If it can't be done, it would look nice with old content replaced by
new with 0 opacity and using fade in to show it.
(Note - I can be prejudiced, I hate collapsible options in PMA because
the animation used there is just wrong imo)