Custom transition-timing-function values

Feature Requests
1

From old feedback: https://feedback.cwicly.com/boards/feature-requests/posts/custom-transition-timing-function-values

Option to enter custom timing functions for the transition property

2

In addition to that:

Currently it is not possible to enter variables or CSS calc functions into the transition delay field.
Useful for more advanced stuff like staggered transitions and also saves a lot of CSS instead of creating multiple Relative Styles just for transition delay purposes.

So both, transition timing function and transition delay, could feature an input with no restrictions.
I understand the way it currently works is most likely to prevent errors and hopefully this gets resolved at some time, also with other fields that only allows certain values.

Hope that makes sense.

3

I second this, very needed and essential:

  • when you use CSS variables to have consistent behaviour across whole site
  • when you need to do calculations

I have the same request for box-shadow since current solution doesn’t allow CSS variables, it just parses pasted text to inputs.

An additionnal real free text input for the whole property would be the best.

Maybe with a switch like basic/advanced which would show/hide separate number inputs / free text input?

NOTE that the box-shadow paste/parse mechanism is brilliant and is probabhly OK for most people, but it is not enough when using some framework or sitewise transitions/shadows.

So, an hybrid solution could be worked out:

  • add additional text input field to transition/box-shadow (with basic/advanced switch or not)
  • allow var or calc in ALL inputs (including number inputs)
  • if global free string property can be parsed into each number input, do it
  • else just keep the whole free string
  • then stay in sync between both types of inputs when possible :wink:

It might require some really complex regex stuff, though, but CSS does it :wink:

So maybe just a free text input and no parse/sync would be OK?

1 Like
4

Thanks for reviving this topic @yankiara.

Quite surprised at the same time that this didn’t get more attention over the past year.

Wondering if there are (even) plans of improvement in that regard.

Would clear things up and make it easier for me to decide how to proceed and handle this topic in the future in terms of integration/implementation.

5

Can’t believe it’s finally here :exploding_head:
Thank you!!

6

Hi @Marius,

My apologies for the lack of reactivity on this one…
And thank you for keeping this alive with @yankiara.

Better late than never, don’t they say :smiley: