The patch looks good - my only concern is in adding properties to $.fx
(since that's where current fx plugins go). I think I'm ok with this,
I doubt there will ever be an "off" animation (famous last words).
--John
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A
Anyone ? O_o
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com/
On Oct 18, 9:45 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Animations can now be synchronous.
> http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3495
>
> I tried the $.fx.sync option and it's like +15 bytes and works
> perfectly.
> I renamed 'sync' to
Animations can now be synchronous.
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3495
I tried the $.fx.sync option and it's like +15 bytes and works
perfectly.
I renamed 'sync' to 'off' to avoid using complicated terms (though
it's used by $.ajax).
This means that if you do:
jQuery.fx.off = true;
All animati
i'm sorry but if you program an animation that is capable of crashing a
browser then you're doing it wrong.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jörn Zaefferer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its so frickin easy to kill your browser with JavaScript, no matter
> how fast your machine is. Its not hard to
Its so frickin easy to kill your browser with JavaScript, no matter
how fast your machine is. Its not hard to imagine how an animation
kills a "normal" machine.
Jörn
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Thiago Cruz Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> its clearly a hardware flaw if you're having proble
its clearly a hardware flaw if you're having problems with your internet
navigation buddy
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, I'll buy a new PC so I can fully enjoy jQuery animations...
> So out of place
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Thiago
Right, I'll buy a new PC so I can fully enjoy jQuery animations...
So out of place
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Thiago Cruz Santos <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> imo there is no need to disable animation due to performance issues, i mean
> a browser its a program just like any other, if you
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:07 PM, John Resig wrote:
> Another good side effect is that animations can be disabled for
> accessibility reasons (e.g. people who
> have extreme motion sickness).
>
> --John
Yeah, I was surprised last week to learn that this is a real problem
for some people:
http://a
Ariel is right at less with an option to disable animations the motion
sick people could turn it off and as an option simplify the interface
of desperate old machines...
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Thiago Cruz Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> imo there is no need to disable animation due t
imo there is no need to disable animation due to performance issues, i mean
a browser its a program just like any other, if your photoshop is running
slow why would you care about running a "low-res" version of it? you would
just upgrade your pc or use fireworks or something.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 a
I think this is wrong.
What if I get into a page, while a have a lot of programs running on
my fast computer...
I get a cookie that says "you're slow", so I get to see mediocre
animations for good (until the cookie is cleaned) just because I had
some overhead once.
I think we could make a plugin
My bet is detect + cookie because the test could be fast and
asyncronous and regenerated ever if is not present...
I'll try to deal with it...
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Alex Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> detecting computer speed is probably not a very good option because
> there are
detecting computer speed is probably not a very good option because
there are x factors that could contribute and also storing it in a
cookie is no good because cookies get deleted all the time...at least
by me :)
the most sensible thing to do imho is make 0 make the effect instant,
as proposed.
Currently 0 won't provide instant effects as 0 is interpreted as null.
There was a proposed feature to allow 0 to to apply the result of the
effect instantly.
On 8 Oct, 09:39, Florin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think jQuery should detect if the machine is slow (quite
> impossible, if
I don't think jQuery should detect if the machine is slow (quite
impossible, if you ask me :) ) .
Rather, provide an option for developers to enable or disable
animations and they can then offer this option to the users.
I will try with 0 and see if that works ;).
On Oct 7, 8:07 pm, "John Resi
i think this would be a nice approach.. the result of this "benchmark"
could be stored in a cookie and wouldn't have a big impact on every
pageload
On 7 Okt., 22:56, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe run an invisble but expensive animation and check how many steps
> are actu
Andrea Giammarchi made a CPU meter that relies on setInterval.
But I think this adds more problems (and overhead) than solutions.
Maybe for a plugin.
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com/
On Oct 7, 5:56 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe run an invisble but expensive
Maybe run an invisble but expensive animation and check how many steps
are actually rendered, eg. animate an element for 100px for 100ms and
check how often the step-callback is actually called for that
animation. Anything below a certain threshold is considered too slow.
Jörn
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008
I noticed recently that the iPhone displays jQuery animations very smoothly
(see: engineyard.com on the iphone), which means that Apple has
significantly improved their iPhone rendering engine since 1.0. That said, I
still think it'd be great to be able to use native animations where
available.
--
How would you detect if someone is on a slower machine? (Just curious)
But yes, it was discussed recently that passing in an animation speed
of 0 might have that effect. Another good side effect is that
animations can be disabled for accessibility reasons (e.g. people who
have extreme motion sick
20 matches
Mail list logo
