x''(t) = -2a * x'(t) - k * x(t)
w^2 + 2 a w + k = 0
(w + a)^2 + k - a^2 = 0
w = -a ± sqrt(a^2 - k)
When turning the frequency all the way down, I couldn't find a point where the friction started to make the relaxation to equilibrium slower rather than faster.
Edit: that being said, it looks like in the heavily damped case it takes much less than the full duration to finish. That is probably a bug.
Demo: http://daneden.github.io/animate.css/
Of course there's always a the danger of "overdoing it" w/ ridiculous animations but if you can avoid that temptation it's a very handy tool.
It's a definite WIP so any thoughts / ideas / opinions are welcome: Gabrielmtn+github@gmail.com
But generally I agree, animations are easily overused. They're quite useful for showing (and sometimes hiding) UI elements, as this leads to a interface devoid of shock and surprise. Heck, I think I read something about that in a paper that predates the web…
Last bit is interesting, animation can convey useful information, but mostly they're attention grabber. They have a place, but care is required.
[0] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic
As a sidenote.. I'm currently working on a patch to CyanogenMod 12.1 that allows you turn off fancy animations (such option exists already when you turn on power save mode)
Where should animation libraries be used? I'd think they should be used where a user would appreciate an animation. Such places could be while waiting for something to load, or maybe on a website dedicated to animation libraries. I think that would be an appropriate place for animations. It'd be weird if a website dedicated to animations didn't have animations on it.
Don't get me wrong, I feel like a lot of animation is unnecessary but if you did what Hacker News advised every webpage would look the same in Lynx as it does in Chrome. Animations can serve a purpose - to focus the user's eye, to give them a sense of where something is going to and from, etc. etc.
They're not universally bad, and this is a fascinating library - it deserves more credit than "animations are bad".
Animations for the sake of having animation is really distracting. But if used subtly and with purpose, they could help enhance the user experience.
I think it's the right direction, though; animating to subtly direct user attention to the right place.
(BTW- This is great work, I just hope UI devs don't overdo it...)
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UIKit/...:
As well as a full-on physics with collisions, etc:
I'm not seeing anything "physics" in the traditional sense; just manipulating the matrix3d in a transform property of an element in real-time to provide difficult or impossible effects with CSS alone.
If it is, then I suppose I'll agree it's physics based.
very nice read.
with (context) {
beginPath();
moveTo(100, 100);
lineTo(100, 300);
lineTo(300, 300);
closePath();
stroke();
}Well, you shouldn't use it anyways since it's confusing/ambiguous and it's also terrible for performance.
Although if you need to route it to an external (non-browser) output, you might consider using OSC. There appear to be multiple implementations, but here's one: https://github.com/marmorkuchen-net/osc-js
This has been under very active development for going on 3 years now, and it is just starting to get to the point where it can stop being called a prototype or experiment.
"Chrome-based" would be more accurate because it doesn't even work in the latest Firefox.
Also, it contains a full page rant on why Firefox is bad (because of something about Netscape and AOL -- apparently it's still 1995).
If you're going to call it "web-based" try targeting more than 1 browser regardless of your personal beliefs.