mirror of
https://github.com/hyprwm/RFCs.git
synced 2025-01-10 09:39:49 +01:00
rfc: 1-animation-slide-side
This commit is contained in:
parent
3965580f56
commit
12b8f0e762
1 changed files with 68 additions and 0 deletions
68
rfcs/0001-animation-slide-side.md
Normal file
68
rfcs/0001-animation-slide-side.md
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
feature: changing slide side animation
|
||||
start-date: 2024-06-16
|
||||
author: Ciflire
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Trying to normalize the side parameter given to animation
|
||||
|
||||
# Motivation
|
||||
|
||||
I felt like the animation side is not consistent. To give an example I will be
|
||||
using my configuration file:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
animation=windowsIn, 1,2,windowIn, slide bottom
|
||||
animation=windowsOut,1,2,windowOut, slide bottom
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
These two animation have the same side given, but one gives an animation that
|
||||
slides **from** bottom **to** the center and the other gives an animation that
|
||||
slides **from** center **to** bottom
|
||||
|
||||
This bothered me, so I decided i would make an RFC to get feedback on that, to
|
||||
know if I am the only thinking that or not as I could get no feedback in the
|
||||
discord.
|
||||
|
||||
# Detailed design
|
||||
|
||||
The other conception of it would be to think of a vector which to me feels more
|
||||
intuitive when thinking of animation, and movement. Instead of thinking of a
|
||||
fixed size.
|
||||
|
||||
# Examples and Interactions
|
||||
|
||||
The previous configuration would be rewritten into
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
animation=windowsIn, 1,2,windowIn, slide top
|
||||
animation=windowsOut,1,2,windowOut, slide bottom
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Where `top` and `bottom` give the direction of the window when going in or out.
|
||||
|
||||
# Drawbacks
|
||||
|
||||
People would have to change this in their entire config, could also be
|
||||
counterintuitive to other people just as the way it is designed today is
|
||||
counterintuitive to me
|
||||
Having to change the actual implementation
|
||||
|
||||
# Alternatives
|
||||
|
||||
Keeping the way it is
|
||||
|
||||
# Prior art
|
||||
|
||||
This is already impleted
|
||||
|
||||
# Unresolved questions
|
||||
|
||||
Still no community feedback so I use this dedicated space to have some
|
||||
|
||||
# Future work
|
||||
|
||||
Feel free to criticize it, sorry for my English as well i'm not native, also
|
||||
first time doing an RFC
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue