The fade in transition "kind of" works here in Vivaldi (which is Blink/chromium based) but you have no fade-out animation at all -- because visibility cannot transition. Poof, it's gone.
Neither visibility or display:none are great choices when you want animations. It sucks bad, but that's just how it is.
Your TranslateY didn't seem to do anything I could see in any browser I tested (chromium, vivialdi, edge, firefox) hence why I made a more... exaggerated version with relative positioning that should be more apparent something is happening.
Same issue bit me when I was first starting to try to use these techniques for animations. The key is you're declaring a half second animation -- which is NOT a "quick" transition by any definition -- but you're not getting anywhere near that in the result... and the use of visibility is the cause.
I started HTML and CSS on Myspace! I love teaching and solving difficult problems. I really enjoy using frameworks but I love the challenge of rolling your own. I try VanillaJS until I need more.
You are correct, .5s is not a quick transition. What I meant is the curve of the transition is quick.
I also agree that visibility and display are not properties you should be using for CSS animations, I was pretty surprised when it worked with visibility. I imagine it is a browser compatibility issue.
We are getting in the weeds a bit, this was just to show the target technique.
We are getting in the weeds a bit, this was just to show the target technique.
... and a very powerful technique it is, hence my giving it a big thumbs up and taking the time to expand upon it. We need to spread the word about these types of things so people can stop throwing JavaScript at things in a way that breaks accessibility.
There's so much we can do without JS now, and things that never should have been scripting's job in the first place that people still just blindly dive for JS to accomplish "the hard way".
Hell, there are still people calling themselves "experts" or "professionals" who will use JavaScript instead of :hover because they don't know enough HTML, CSS, or JS to even be building pages.
See half-witted incompetent trash like jQuery's "$(whatever).fade()". NOT JAVASCRIPT's JOB!
Avoiding using scripting in a broken way, or limiting scripting to enhancing a page instead of being the only means of providing functionality is SO important right now, what with the precedent set in the Domino's case that laws like the US ADA or UK EQA / DDA no longer just applying to medical/utilities/government/banking websites. It's also why things like letting react do render client-side is a walking talking /FAIL/ at development.
We NEED to get the word out that techniques like :target and :checked are how it should be done -- in as cleanly and gracefully degrading a manner as possible -- if for no other reason than for site owners to avoid getting dragged into court.
I started HTML and CSS on Myspace! I love teaching and solving difficult problems. I really enjoy using frameworks but I love the challenge of rolling your own. I try VanillaJS until I need more.
The fade in transition "kind of" works here in Vivaldi (which is Blink/chromium based) but you have no fade-out animation at all -- because visibility cannot transition. Poof, it's gone.
Neither visibility or display:none are great choices when you want animations. It sucks bad, but that's just how it is.
Your TranslateY didn't seem to do anything I could see in any browser I tested (chromium, vivialdi, edge, firefox) hence why I made a more... exaggerated version with relative positioning that should be more apparent something is happening.
Same issue bit me when I was first starting to try to use these techniques for animations. The key is you're declaring a half second animation -- which is NOT a "quick" transition by any definition -- but you're not getting anywhere near that in the result... and the use of visibility is the cause.
"not working at all" to "kind of" I'll take it.
You are correct, .5s is not a quick transition. What I meant is the curve of the transition is quick.
I also agree that visibility and display are not properties you should be using for CSS animations, I was pretty surprised when it worked with visibility. I imagine it is a browser compatibility issue.
We are getting in the weeds a bit, this was just to show the target technique.
... and a very powerful technique it is, hence my giving it a big thumbs up and taking the time to expand upon it. We need to spread the word about these types of things so people can stop throwing JavaScript at things in a way that breaks accessibility.
There's so much we can do without JS now, and things that never should have been scripting's job in the first place that people still just blindly dive for JS to accomplish "the hard way".
Hell, there are still people calling themselves "experts" or "professionals" who will use JavaScript instead of :hover because they don't know enough HTML, CSS, or JS to even be building pages.
See half-witted incompetent trash like jQuery's "$(whatever).fade()". NOT JAVASCRIPT's JOB!
Avoiding using scripting in a broken way, or limiting scripting to enhancing a page instead of being the only means of providing functionality is SO important right now, what with the precedent set in the Domino's case that laws like the US ADA or UK EQA / DDA no longer just applying to medical/utilities/government/banking websites. It's also why things like letting react do render client-side is a walking talking /FAIL/ at development.
We NEED to get the word out that techniques like :target and :checked are how it should be done -- in as cleanly and gracefully degrading a manner as possible -- if for no other reason than for site owners to avoid getting dragged into court.
Yes! I really appreciate the conversation 😁