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

M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Prateek Saxena psaxena@wikimedia.orgwrote:

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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

On 03/01/2014 10:10 AM, Prateek Saxena wrote:

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