[thomnah]

Oh hey, that's quite a critical comment. But usually the best comes out of criticism. So let me go a bit deeper to explain our case. layerJS is not implementing a single UX effect. Then it would be indeed a bit too big for that. (Actually using jQuery + 1 plugin per effect would be even bigger) layerJS implements a general UX concept that can handle basically all UX navigation pattern. It actually thinks HTML further: Instead of documents that are linked and loaded one after each other it actually links fragments (frames) into different views (stages) in an animated way. With regular HTML documents you need code everything that is dynamic. And that actually makes things more complicated because you can't see from the declarative HTML how the final UI will look like. layerJS makes the UI layout and most of the interaction declarative, so everything is clearly declared in static HTML. And i think that the boilerplate for this is pretty small. So your notion that some of the declarations should be in CSS or so is totally agreed. But we can't do this right now because the browsers do not support this yet. So for example the scrolling example is not working in pure CSS because we are actually allow something like "background-size: cover" (which usually only works for background images) to actually work on any frame while still allowing (or not allowing) scrolling. This we have to implement in javascript today and for this we need something like "lj-no-scrolling". If the browser guys find the concept intriguing they may at some point implement similar mechanisms directly in HTML. For now I see layerJS as a polyfill for these concepts that may vanish at some time. I hope i could clarify things a bit. Please let me know if that raises more questions. I really appreciate your long feedback, even if negative. I know from experience that out of those often good things arise!