Skip to main content

Bug Tracker

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.

jsFiddle example

StackOverflow question

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 rwaldron comment:1

component: unfiledeffects
keywords: → needsreview
status: newopen

Technically, this is all correct - but I see the conundrum. Marking "needsreview" for further bike-shedding.

Changed May 22, 2011 07:27PM UTC by john comment:2

keywords: needsreviewneedsreview,1.7-discuss

Nominating ticket for 1.7 discussion.

Changed May 22, 2011 08:39PM UTC by rwaldron 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 jaubourg 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 timmywil comment:5

-1, It is not "hidden" if visibility: hidden either.

Changed May 23, 2011 04:29PM UTC by paul.irish 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 dmethvin 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 lonesomeday 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 john 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 ajpiano 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 scottgonzalez 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 rwaldron comment:12

milestone: 1.next1.7
priority: undecidedlow
resolution: → wontfix
status: openclosed

Closing per 1.7 roadmap meeting resolution