Comments on: Getting fancy with easing

By: Easing in jQuery 1.4a2 – James Padolsey

Easing in jQuery 1.4a2 – James Padolsey — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:50:46 +0000

[...] happy to write that my proposed change has been accepted into the jQuery “fx” core. I thought it worth explaining how this [...]

By: Karl Swedberg

Karl Swedberg — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:23:05 +0000

Ah. I guess I glossed over that part. I see your point.

By: James

James — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:26:27 +0000

@Cedric, potentially, yes, any changes to the fx core could have an effect, although I doubt they would.

@Karl, I mentioned that as an alternative but two things make it slightly different from my solution:

- The animations are not in sync, one will begin slightly after the other. This isn’t a big issue at all – but it could be noticeable in certain situations.

– My mod has the effect of applying the per-property easing function on top of the default easing function for that animation. I didn’t intend for this to happen originally, but I’m not sure how to avoid it. You can see the difference here: http://james.padolsey.com/demos/jquery/easing/mod-vs-noqueue.html

By: Karl Swedberg

Karl Swedberg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:57:33 +0000

Actually, the first animate in my previous comment could be written as .animate({left: 500}, 1000) since ‘swing’ is the default easing.

By: Karl Swedberg

Karl Swedberg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:00 +0000

I like that syntax, James! A more verbose syntax that doesn’t require modding anything would be this:

$(elem)
.animate(
  {left: 500}, 
  {duration: 1000, easing: 'swing'})
.animate(
  {top: 500}, 
  {duration: 1000, queue: false, easing: 'easeOutBounce'}
);

By: Cedric Dugas

Cedric Dugas — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:43:07 +0000

Would be nice to have this feature in jQuery 1.4

As this is a modded animate, could changes in the jquery core create some bugs in your implementation?