[f33d5173]

To me this article is ridiculous bcause the first thing I think of when I hear "easing function" is the css version of that concept, which seems to solve all the authors problems? The css easing functions are weirdly limited, because they consist of a single function that takes 4 parameters, then a bunch of specializations of that function. There are great websites on the internet for configuring those parametere though, and they are quite general from a practical standpoint. It should be trivial to emulate the concept in any other language/system.

[jakelazaroff]

By "CSS version" I'm assuming you mean cubic-bezier [1], which definitely does not solve all the author's problems. For example, you cannot use it to create their third example (easeOutElastic), nor many of Apple's kinematic easing functions or the feedback control.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/easing-func...

[f33d5173]

Yes, you can't use it to create those other functions, but you can use it to fulfill the authors purported goal in using those other functions. It also solves the deficiencies the author highlights in those other approaches. You could of course point to deficiencies in it and seek to resolve those deficiencies, but that wasn't how the article was structured.

[jakelazaroff]

I'm not sure why you think that? The author defines "easing functions" like this (which describes CSS's `cubic-bezier`):

> An easing function takes in a linear progress value, and returns a new progress value, but converted to nonlinear motion.

They then describe the problem with them in the section "Easing is not so easy", after introducing easing functions that are already more expressive than `cubic-bezier`:

> In traditional animation, the principles are just guidelines; you still end up creating new unique motion each time based on what acting the scene calls for. Easing functions in code don't quite give you the flexibility to do that.

[shermantanktop]

I read the article as an unreasonably deep dive into something that few people care about as much as the author. I certainly don’t, but that’s what makes it good. That’s perfect for HN.

[mattkrause]

My only real beef with the article is that "Uneasy about easing functions" would have been a much better title.

[Bluestein]

Oh, you beat me to it, I see :)

Kudos.-

[mattkrause]

Great minds, etc!

[Bluestein]

Totally :)

PS. And, if I may as a recovering Flash 5/Actionscript victim ...

... this (great) article brought back memories.-

[pahgawk]

Author here -- kicking myself because this is way better lmao

[ziml77]

You should edit the title. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will find this post later on and be tickled by that :)

[mattkrause]

Take it--it's all yours :-)

[sfink]

Not disagreeing, but you might be surprised at how widespread the interest in easing is. In my experience, easing is a major topic of debate whenever people are discussing the look and feel of animations.

Often people just argue over the proper parameters for the same old functions, but that's all they have available. Their arguments use lots of ambiguous human terminology like snappiness, surprise, anticipation, sluggishness, etc. that don't cleanly map to specific parameters.

Adjusting easing can produce dramatically different results in how we feel about something. It triggers our hindbrain. We want to pounce on the mouse, or block the incoming rock, or whatever, I guess? Try going in for a handshake a little faster or slower than usual and see what happens...

[f33d5173]

It didn't seem unreasonably deep at all. It was long, sure, but it seemed to only scratch the surface of the topics it was discussing. That was sort of my point in bringing up the css function - it is itself incredibly bare-bones, but just describing it's usage would have covered more ground imo.

[shermantanktop]

"Unreasonably deep" is a relative term. Certainly deeper than I care to go. But sure, it could be unreasonably deeper.

Every time I have used animation my approach has been to treat it as frosting to be used sparingly. As such I would be much more attracted to simple/supported modes (that someone else will be interested in keeping functional) than I would be to obsessing over physics realism. But I am also a UI caveman with no taste, so there's that.

[ajkjk]

how would any of that make the article ridiculous?

[f33d5173]

It circles around the point without ever reaching it. Each section seemed like it was missing the obvious. "To me" meaning that was my personal impression.