Side navigation
#9336 closed enhancement (wontfix)
Opened May 18, 2011 04:42PM UTC
Closed June 07, 2011 06:53PM UTC
:hidden doesn't check for opacity: 0
| Reported by: | lonesomeday | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | 1.7 |
| Component: | effects | Version: | 1.6.1 |
| Keywords: | needsreview,1.7-discuss | Cc: | |
| Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using fadeIn is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking is(':hidden') on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by display: none.
It would be useful if the :hidden filter checked the opacity setting.
Attachments (0)
Change History (12)
Changed May 18, 2011 04:44PM UTC by comment:1
| component: | unfiled → effects |
|---|---|
| keywords: | → needsreview |
| status: | new → open |
Changed May 22, 2011 07:27PM UTC by comment:2
| keywords: | needsreview → needsreview,1.7-discuss |
|---|
Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.
Changed May 22, 2011 08:39PM UTC by comment:3
| description: | The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`. \ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example] \ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question] \ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. → The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`.\ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example]\ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question]\ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. |
|---|
+0, This needs discussion
Changed May 23, 2011 12:56AM UTC by comment:4
-1, It's exactly as documented. The element takes space and should be considered hidden.
Changed May 23, 2011 04:58AM UTC by comment:5
-1, It is not "hidden" if visibility: hidden either.
Changed May 23, 2011 04:29PM UTC by comment:6
| description: | The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`.\ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example]\ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question]\ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. → The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`. \ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example] \ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question] \ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. |
|---|
-1, that'd be more of an :invisible as the element still takes up space, just like with visibility:hidden
The dimensions == 0 check is expected by users nowadays.
Changed May 24, 2011 10:04PM UTC by comment:7
| _comment0: | -1, If we do `opacity:0` then what about `top:-10000px;left:-10000px` as well? I don't think we can change the standard to `visible to human eyeballs` and the docs are already clear on this. → 1306274712552214 |
|---|
-1, If we do opacity:0 then what about top:-10000px;left:-10000px as well? I don't think we can change the standard to visible to human eyeballs and the docs are already clear on what we mean.
Changed May 25, 2011 07:38PM UTC by comment:8
I understand the reasoning for not having it as part of the hidden filter. Is there an argument for adding the check to the fadeIn/fadeOut/fadeToggle methods instead? That's the main utility I see this as having.
Changed June 03, 2011 02:05PM UTC by comment:9
| description: | The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`. \ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example] \ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question] \ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. → The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`.\ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example]\ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question]\ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. |
|---|
-1, Different semantics here.
Changed June 05, 2011 10:14PM UTC by comment:10
| description: | The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`.\ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example]\ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question]\ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. → The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`. \ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example] \ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question] \ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. |
|---|
-1, Unrealistic.
Changed June 06, 2011 03:15PM UTC by comment:11
| description: | The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`. \ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example] \ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question] \ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. → The logical way to prepare an element to be faded in using `fadeIn` is by setting the opacity style to 0. However, invoking `is(':hidden')` on an element with opacity 0 returns false, unless hidden by `display: none`.\ \ [http://jsfiddle.net/aKtYj/ jsFiddle example]\ \ [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6045636/css-and-opacity-following-fadein-not-working/6045814 StackOverflow question]\ \ It would be useful if the `:hidden` filter checked the opacity setting. |
|---|
-1
Changed June 07, 2011 06:53PM UTC by comment:12
| milestone: | 1.next → 1.7 |
|---|---|
| priority: | undecided → low |
| resolution: | → wontfix |
| status: | open → closed |
Closing per 1.7 roadmap meeting resolution
Technically, this is all correct - but I see the conundrum. Marking "needsreview" for further bike-shedding.