I am having an issue with Chrome (v. 67) at OSX and movement animations. I've prepared JS fiddle with it:
https://jsfiddle.net/5m173ghv/31/
If you open it at safari it is working very good. But, when you will use chrome it has little lags when moving.
I cannot describe it a bit more... You need to open it and try yourself on the big screen... Please look carefully at white box. You will see that this box has sometimes something like lags or small jumps(?)...
This is very weird. I've tried almost every answer from the internet (trust me ;) ).
I also tried:
Change transforms at animation into position (left)
Change animations into transitions
adding additional parameters (backface-visibility, perspective, will-change...)
Changing sequences of animation to have more steps (per 10%)
Debugging on chrome dev tools (~30-40fps)
Adding transforms like translateZ(0)
You think that this is chrome bug or maybe my fault? Do you have any solution for that?
Here you have code:
HTML
<span class="spark"></div>
SCSS
body {
background-color: black;
}
#keyframes left-to-right {
0% {
transform: translate3d(0,0,0);
}
100% {
transform: translate3d(50vw,0,0);
}
}
.spark {
position: absolute;
top: 30px;
width: 322px;
height: 500px;
background-color: white;
transform: translate3d(0,0,0);
backface-visibility: hidden;
perspective: 1000px;
animation: left-to-right 5s infinite linear;
will-change: transform;
pointer-events: none;
user-select: none;
}
This trivial CSS animation code snippet doesn't get 60 fps in Chrome 58 on a MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016), according to the Performance tab in Dev Tools. It's mostly smooth, but the square occasionally visibly skips a frame or two during animation. Why? How do I fix this?
EDIT: It still reproduces in Chrome 79 on a 16-inch 2019 MacBook Pro.
div {
background-color: red;
height: 10vh;
width: 10vh;
margin: 10vh;
animation-name: slide;
animation-duration: 5s;
animation-iteration-count: infinite;
animation-timing-function: linear;
}
#keyframes slide {
0% { transform: translateX(0); }
50% { transform: translateX(1000%); }
100% { transform: translateX(0); }
}
<div></div>
I managed to get a Chromium engineer to look into this on Twitter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/flackrw/status/1225116562010656769
Sadly the animation isn't composited because the percentage transform keyframe is dependent on a layout size. This isn't fundamental and it's on our short list of things to fix! https://crbug.com/389359 It's a good example of why compositing effects helps a lot.
But switching from translateX(1000%) to 400px didn't help. https://css-stutter.glitch.me/ So another bug was filed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/flackrw/status/1225144162858799104
Thanks for trying - I'm able to see the same! I filed https://crbug.com/1049248 and recorded a trace where I saw that the call to SwapBuffers is taking a long time once in a while. Feel free to add any details I may have missed.
So hopefully we'll have an answer there soon-ish. I also see the same issue on Safari 13 for macOS 10.15, so I've filed a WebKit bug as well.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207282
There appears to be no way to work around this issue at this time.
I'd don't see a lot of issues in Chrome on a 2017 MBP 13" using your code. However, replacing the vh/wv units with px to avoid any browser overhead from checking dynamic sizes and adding will-change: transform; cleaned it up the minimal issues I was seeing.
There's some pretty good information in this article Smooth as Butter: Achieving 60 FPS Animations with CSS3 that might give you additional ideas.
However, at this point, I might attribute any jankiness to other elements on the page that aren't in your example.
div {
background-color: red;
height: 20px;
width: 20px;
margin: 20px;
animation-name: slide;
animation-duration: 5s;
animation-iteration-count: infinite;
animation-timing-function: linear;
will-change: transform;
}
#keyframes slide {
0% { transform: translateX(0); }
50% { transform: translateX(1000%); }
100% { transform: translateX(0); }
}
<div></div>
So, I understand how to perform both CSS3 transitions and animations. What is not clear, and I've googled, is when to use which.
For example, if I want to make a ball bounce, it is clear that animation is the way to go. I could provide keyframes and the browser would do the intermediates frames and I'll have a nice animation going.
However, there are cases when a said effect can be achieved either way. A simple and common example would be implement the facebook style sliding drawer menu:
This effect can be achieved through transitions like so:
.sf-page {
-webkit-transition: -webkit-transform .2s ease-out;
}
.sf-page.out {
-webkit-transform: translateX(240px);
}
http://jsfiddle.net/NwEGz/
Or, through animations like so:
.sf-page {
-webkit-animation-duration: .4s;
-webkit-transition-timing-function: ease-out;
}
.sf-page.in {
-webkit-animation-name: sf-slidein;
-webkit-transform: translate3d(0, 0, 0);
}
.sf-page.out {
-webkit-animation-name: sf-slideout;
-webkit-transform: translateX(240px);
}
#-webkit-keyframes sf-slideout {
from { -webkit-transform: translate3d(0, 0, 0); }
to { -webkit-transform: translate3d(240px, 0, 0); }
}
#-webkit-keyframes sf-slidein {
from { -webkit-transform: translate3d(240px, 0, 0); }
to { -webkit-transform: translate3d(0, 0, 0); }
}
http://jsfiddle.net/4Z5Mr/
With HTML that looks like so:
<div class="sf-container">
<div class="sf-page in" id="content-container">
<button type="button">Click Me</button>
</div>
<div class="sf-drawer">
</div>
</div>
And, this accompanying jQuery script:
$("#content-container").click(function(){
$("#content-container").toggleClass("out");
// below is only required for css animation route
$("#content-container").toggleClass("in");
});
What I'd like to understand is what are the pros and cons of these approaches.
One obvious difference is that animating is taking a whole lot more code.
Animation gives better flexibility. I can have different animation for sliding out and in
Is there something that can be said about performance. Do both take advantage of h/w acceleration?
Which is more modern and the way going forward
Anything else you could add?
It looks like you've got a handle on how to do them, just not when to do them.
A transition is an animation, just one that is performed between two distinct states - i.e. a start state and an end state. Like a drawer menu, the start state could be open and the end state could be closed, or vice versa.
If you want to perform something that does not specifically involve a start state and an end state, or you need more fine-grained control over the keyframes in a transition, then you've got to use an animation.
I'll let the definitions speak for themselves (according to Merriam-Webster):
Transition: A movement, development, or evolution from one form, stage, or style to another
Animation: Endowed with life or the qualities of life; full of movement
The names appropriately fit their purposes in CSS
So, the example you gave should use transitions because it is only a change from one state to another
A shorter answer, straight on point:
Transition:
Needs a triggering element (:hover, :focus etc.)
Only 2 animation states (start and end)
Used for simpler animations (buttons, dropdown menus and so on)
Easier to create but not so many animation/effect possibilities
Animation #keyframes:
It can be used for endless animations
Can set more than 2 states
No boundaries
Both use CPU acceleration for a much smoother effect.
Animation takes a lot more code unless you're using the same transition over and over, in which case an animation would be better.
You can have different effects for sliding in and out without an animation. Just have a different transition on both the original rule and the modified rule:
.two-transitions {
transition: all 50ms linear;
}
.two-transitions:hover {
transition: all 800ms ease-out;
}
Animations are just abstractions of transitions, so if the transition is hardware accelerated, the animation will be. It makes no difference.
Both are very modern.
My rule of thumb is if I use the same transition three times, it should probably be an animation. This is easier to maintain and alter in the future. But if you are only using it once, it is more typing to make the animation and maybe not worth it.
Animations are just that - a smooth behavior of set of properties. In other words it specifies what should happen to a set of element's properties. You define an animation and describe how this set of properties should behave during the animation process.
Transitions on the other side specify how a property (or properties) should perform their change. Each change. Setting a new value for certain property, be it with JavaScript or CSS, is always a transition, but by default it is not smooth. By setting transition in the css style you define different (smooth) way to perform these changes.
It can be said that transitions define a default animation that should be performed every time the specified property has changed.
Is there something that can be said about performance. Do both take
advantage of h/w acceleration?
In modern browsers, h/w acceleration occurs for the properties filter, opacity and transform. This is for both CSS Animations and CSS Transitions.
.yourClass {
transition: all 0.5s;
color: #00f;
margin: 50px;
font-size: 20px;
cursor: pointer;
}
.yourClass:hover {
color: #f00;
}
<p class="yourClass"> Hover me </p>
CSS3 Transitions brought frontend developers a significant ability to modify the appearance and behavior of an element as relative to a change in his state. CSS3 animations extends this ability and allow to modify the appearance and behavior of an element in multiple keyframes, so transitions provides us the ability to change from one state to another, while that animations can set multiple points of transition within different keyframes.
So, let's look at this transition sample where applied a transition with 2 points, start point at left: 0 and an end point at left: 500px
.container {
background: gainsboro;
border-radius: 6px;
height: 300px;
position: relative;
}
.ball {
transition: left 2s linear;
background: green;
border-radius: 50%;
height: 50px;
position: absolute;
width: 50px;
left: 0px;
}
.container:hover .ball{
left: 500px;
}
<div class="container">
<figure class="ball"></figure>
</div>
The above can be also created via animation like so:
#keyframes slide {
0% {
left: 0;
}
100% {
left: 500px;
}
}
.container {
background: gainsboro;
border-radius: 6px;
height: 200px;
position: relative;
}
.ball {
background: green;
border-radius: 50%;
height: 50px;
position: absolute;
width: 50px;
}
.container:hover .ball {
animation: slide 2s linear;
}
<div class="container">
<figure class="ball"></figure>
</div>
And if we would like another in-between point, it would be possible to achieve only via animation, we can add another keyFrame to achieve this and this is the real power of animation over transition:
#keyframes slide {
0% {
left: 0;
}
50% {
left: 250px;
top: 100px;
}
100% {
left: 500px;
}
}
.container {
background: gainsboro;
border-radius: 6px;
height: 200px;
position: relative;
}
.ball {
background: green;
border-radius: 50%;
height: 50px;
position: absolute;
width: 50px;
}
.container:hover .ball {
animation: slide 2s linear;
}
<div class="container">
<figure class="ball"></figure>
</div>
transition can go reverse from middle of the way, but animation replay the keyframes from start to end.
const transContainer = document.querySelector(".trans");
transContainer.onclick = () => {
transContainer.classList.toggle("trans-active");
}
const animContainer = document.querySelector(".anim");
animContainer.onclick = () => {
if(animContainer.classList.contains("anim-open")){
animContainer.classList.remove("anim-open");
animContainer.classList.add("anim-close");
}else{
animContainer.classList.remove("anim-close");
animContainer.classList.add("anim-open");
}
}
*{
font: 16px sans-serif;
}
p{
width: 100%;
background-color: #ff0;
}
.sq{
width: 80px;
height: 80px;
margin: 10px;
background-color: #f00;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
align-items: center;
}
.trans{
transition: width 3s;
}
.trans-active{
width: 200px;
}
.anim-close{
animation: closingAnimation 3s forwards;
}
.anim-open{
animation: openingAnimation 3s forwards;
}
#keyframes openingAnimation {
from{width: 80px}
to{width: 200px}
}
#keyframes closingAnimation {
from{width: 200px}
to{width: 80px}
}
<p>Try click them before reaching end of movement:</p>
<div class="sq trans">Transition</div>
<div class="sq anim">Animation</div>
in addition, if you want the javascript to listen for end of transition, you'll get one event for each property that you change.
for example transition: width 0.5s, height 0.5s. the transitionend event will trigger two times, one for width and one for height.
Just a summary, thanks to this post, there are 5 main differences between CSS transitions vs CSS animations:
1/ CSS transitions:
Animate an object from one state to another, implicitly by browser
Cannot loop
Need a trigger to run (:hover, :focus)
Simple, less code, limited powerful
Easy to work in JavaScript
2/ CSS animations:
Freely switch between multiple states, with various properties and time frame
Can loop
Don’t need any kind of external trigger
More complex, more code, more flexible
Hard to work in JavaScript due to syntax for manipulating keyframes
I believe CSS3 animation vs CSS3 transition will give you the answer you want.
Basically below are some takeaways :
If performance is a concern, then choose CSS3 transition.
If state is to be maintained after each transition, then choose CSS3 transition.
If the animation needs to be repeated, choose CSS3 animation. Because it supports animation-iteration-count.
If a complicated animation is desired. Then CSS3 animation is preferred.
Don't bother yourself which is better. My give away is that, if you can solve your problem with just one or two lines of code then just do it rather than writing bunch of codes that will result to similar behavior.
Anyway, transition is like a subset of animation. It simply means transition can solve certain problems while animation on the other hand can solve all problems.
Animation enables you to have control of each stage starting from 0% all the way to 100% which is something transition cannot really do.
Animation require you writing bunch of codes while transition uses one or two lines of code to perform the same result depending on what you are working on.
Coming from the point of JavaScript, it is best to use transition. Anything that involve just two phase i.e. start and finish use transition.
Summary, if it is stressful don't use it since both can produce similar result
First of all, sorry if the title is wrong because I don't know if these are actually called rotating loaders or not. This is what I am talking about: JSFiddle
I have 2 problems with these loaders,
in .chrome-loader, if I set height: 50px; width: 50px;, and and in .ring-maker set top: 2.5px; left: 2.5px it doesn't work very well. Does px unit support values upto 2 decimal places? I guess they don't. So what can I do to fix it? I basically want to make it of same size as the ones above. Perhaps, some other unit?
For .win8-loader I set this CSS animation for first dot.
#-webkit-keyframe win8dot1 {
0% {left: -10px;}
33% {left: 500px;}
66% {left: 780px;}
100% {left: 1280px;}
}
But it doesn't work. The first dot doesn't even move.
PS: are names like abc1-de2 allowed for keyframes?
You have to correct 2 problems
Your CSS
.win8-loader .dot1 { -webkit-animation: win8-dot1 2.5s infinite linear; }
#-webkit-keyframe win8dot1 {
corrected:
.win8-loader .dot1 { -webkit-animation: win8dot1 2.5s infinite linear; }
#-webkit-keyframes win8dot1 {
I have a case where I need an element to appear for a second and then disappear, and I must not use javascript for it, so I'm trying to make it work with CSS.
Here's an example:
#-webkit-keyframes slide-one-pager {
0% { left: 0; }
50% { left: 100px; }
100% { left: 0; }
}
So in this example the property will gradually transition from 0 to 100 and back to 0. However, I need to get rid of that transition, so the property stays at 0 and gets to 100 as soon as it hits 50%. It doesn't work if I say left: 0; at 49%, because there is still a transition.
Another example, slightly more different than my original question, but if I find a solution for it it will do as well:
#-webkit-keyframes slide-one-pager {
0% { display: none; }
50% { display: block; }
75% { display: block; }
100% { display: none; }
}
Here I want to show an element for a period of time. No, using opacity is not an option, because the element is still there and is still clickable, and I need access to elements below. Unfortunately the "display" property doesn't seem to accept animating. If anyone can think of a solution how to show and hide an element with an animation (without transition!) I will be extremely grateful.
Any ideas?
You can use step-start or step-end (graphs) in your animation configuration so the curve will act like a "steps" (not curvy) so there will be no visual transition between frames, thus the animation will just "jump" between frames.
Example CSS:
animation:1s move infinite step-end;
The above example will call the move keyframes (which I didn't write because it's irrelevant), and will loop on the frames endlessly with the "step" argument which was described earlier, without a transitioned curve.
#keyframes foo{
0%{ margin-left:0 }
50%{ margin-left:50% }
}
div{
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
background: black;
border-radius: 50%;
animation:1s foo infinite;
}
input:checked + div{
animation-timing-function: step-end;
}
<label>
<input type='checkbox' checked /> Disable Animation transition
<div></div>
</label>
👉 Cool demo using this technique
I searched the same thing as you actually.
You can set a greatful parameters in animation, called animation-timing-function allowing you to set perfectly and mathematicaly the animation : With bezier curve values or, if, like me, you're not that good mathematician, a parameter call "step()".
For an example, in none shorthand writing :
.hiding {
animation-name:slide-one-pager;
animation-duration:2s;
animation-timing-function:steps(1);
}
By default, the value of this parameter is set to 0, meaning no steps.
You can read more about this interesting feature here : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/timing-function
And here a shorthand notation for your animation:
.hiding {
animation:slide-one-pager 2s steps(1);
}
For me, it works fine at least on firefox 23.0.1.
Even if I think you solved the problem since one year, maybe could help some people like me here :)
I made it using the -webkit-animation-fill-mode: forwards; property, that stops the animation at 100% without returning the element to the original state. I made up a fiddle with a working example, you can check it out here.
Although in the fiddle you can find a better example, I basically did this (Assuming absolute positioned elements):
.hiding {
-webkit-animation: slide-one-pager 2s;
-webkit-animation-fill-mode: forwards;
}
#-webkit-keyframes slide-one-pager {
0% { left: 0; }
49% { left: 0; }
50% { left: -100px; }
100% { left: -100px; }
}
It just jumps from 0 to -100 in the middle of the transition (49% -> 50% as you 'suggested' :P), and stays there at 100%. As said, with -webkit-animation-fill-mode: forwards; the element will stay as in 100% without going back to it's original state.
I don't know if it'll work in your scenario, but I believe there'd be an easy solution if it doesn't.
You can use this:
animation: typing 1s cubic-bezier(1,-1, 0, 2) infinite;