[Design] Animate (All The Things)

[Prateek Saxena]

Hey,

Matt(superm401) merged my patch relating to animation to
mediawiki/core a few days back (yay!! \o/). I asked him if it made
sense to add some basic animations (slideUp, fadeInUp) to core so that
more extensions can make use of it. He said that not too many
extensions are using animation and thus it doesn't make sense to add
more things to core (I agree). I also feel that a lot of extensions
might not be using animations because the code is long, boring and
full of vendor prefixes. They probably *would* if it were easier to
add animations.

We have a Catch-22 here and we must solve it! I have a 5 step (evil) plan -

1. Brainstorm: Figure out where animation might make sense. Not
because animations are fun (somuchfun) but because they really aid
user interaction. I NEED YOUR HELP HERE!

2. Submit Patches: Once we agree that "extension A" (not necessarily
an extension could be any interface element) needs an animation I'll
code and submit a patch to it which will hopefully get merged.

3. Talk to Matt again and show him all the places where animations are
being used.

4. If Matt agrees, add those animations to core and submit new patches
to all those extensions to use the core animations.

5. PROFIT?? {$_$}


I know Pau and Gilles are doing this for the MultimediaViewer, it'll
be great if we could get more ideas. Looking forward to hearing from
everyone ¯\{^_^}/¯


--prtksxna

[Jared Zimmerman]

If anything I'd assume animation (CSS not JS) should be integrates into
mediawiki.ui so that like buttons and form fields its use will be
consistent across product and uses.



*Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation

Post by Prateek Saxena
Hey,
Matt(superm401) merged my patch relating to animation to
mediawiki/core a few days back (yay!! \o/). I asked him if it made
sense to add some basic animations (slideUp, fadeInUp) to core so that
more extensions can make use of it. He said that not too many
extensions are using animation and thus it doesn't make sense to add
more things to core (I agree). I also feel that a lot of extensions
might not be using animations because the code is long, boring and
full of vendor prefixes. They probably *would* if it were easier to
add animations.
We have a Catch-22 here and we must solve it! I have a 5 step (evil) plan -
1. Brainstorm: Figure out where animation might make sense. Not
because animations are fun (somuchfun) but because they really aid
user interaction. I NEED YOUR HELP HERE!
2. Submit Patches: Once we agree that "extension A" (not necessarily
an extension could be any interface element) needs an animation I'll
code and submit a patch to it which will hopefully get merged.
3. Talk to Matt again and show him all the places where animations are
being used.
4. If Matt agrees, add those animations to core and submit new patches
to all those extensions to use the core animations.
5. PROFIT?? {$_$}
I know Pau and Gilles are doing this for the MultimediaViewer, it'll
be great if we could get more ideas. Looking forward to hearing from
everyone ¯\{^_^}/¯
--prtksxna
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20140303/e9f38a25/attachment.html>

[Matthew Flaschen]

Post by Jared Zimmerman
If anything I'd assume animation (CSS not JS) should be integrates into
mediawiki.ui so that like buttons and form fields its use will be
consistent across product and uses.

Yes, if mediawiki.ui uses the animation, it would be in core.

Matt Flaschen

[Matthew Flaschen]

Post by Prateek Saxena
Hey,
Matt(superm401) merged my patch relating to animation to
mediawiki/core a few days back (yay!! \o/). I asked him if it made
sense to add some basic animations (slideUp, fadeInUp) to core so that
more extensions can make use of it. He said that not too many
extensions are using animation and thus it doesn't make sense to add
more things to core (I agree).

I just suggested it would be better if it were used in either core
(obviously if it's used in core, it has to be in the core mixins file),
or a couple extensions (so not every extension has to be necessarily put
animations in core right away, similar to other CSS).

I agree if there's evidence it would be useful in more than one
extension, it makes sense to think about putting it in core.

The approach proposed (put it in the extensions first, factor out soon
after if a couple share the same animation) seems fine.

A remaining concern is not cluttering unrelated (generated) CSS files
with keyframes, but we're on the same page about that.

Matt Flaschen