Re: [css-animations] Should really a reversed animation use the reversed timing function?
Hr Gwea <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.css.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAE++px8WHxzi376Dj0mFo2y=wckMx7XKCG0sRMjhx=7-Z2xVdg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > No, because then the animation wouldn't be playing in reverse. It > would be an animation with the values swapped. While that's > potentially useful, it's not a "reversed animation". > Yes, it's not a truly reversed animation. But, shouldn't the question be what kind of reversal is more useful rather than sticking to the definition of the word "reversed". Whenever I've needed a reversed animation, what I really look for is the same animation but in the opposite direction, not an exact reversed, so I always end up using ease-in-out as the timing function because it plays the same forward and backwards. If I use any non-symmetric timing function, I get an undesired result. May be there should be a way to specify what kind of reversal is desired. > This should also be easy to do when we finally actually implement the > "frames()" function that was proposed and generally liked a while ago. > I've opened an issue <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/136> > about it. > Interesting, this frames function seems a much more intuitive way for a stepping transition between keyframes. It would makes things much easier.