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.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.