view-transitions VS Tailwind CSS

So let’s add the following CSS to the index template (Slim recognizes a css: block that just renders a normal tag):

/ app/views/counter/index.html.slim
/ (anywhere outside the Turbo Frame tag)
css:
  /* (1) */
  #counter {
    view-transition-name: counter;
    contain: layout;
  }

  /* (2) */
  @keyframes rotate-out {
    to {
      transform: rotate(90deg);
    }
  }

  @keyframes rotate-in {
    from {
      transform: rotate(-90deg);
    }
  }

  /* (3) */
  ::view-transition-old(counter) {
    animation-duration: 200ms;
    animation-name: -ua-view-transition-fade-out, rotate-out;
  }
  ::view-transition-new(counter) {
    animation-duration: 200ms;
    animation-name: -ua-view-transition-fade-in, rotate-in;
  }

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Let’s break this code down a bit:

1. The CSS selector #counter matches the counter div and the view-transition-name property names this area of the screen, for the purpose of View Transitions, as counter. This name will be used in the animation declarations below.

   The clone property currently must be added here for some reasons internal to the current View Transitions implementation in Chrome and must be set to paint or layout. This restriction is planned to be removed from the specification, though, and in fact I’ve heard that it is not needed in Chrome Canary any more.

2. The rotation animation keyframes are defined here. Note that while the transition also uses fade-in and fade-out animations, they don’t have to be defined here because the spec requires browsers to implement them natively under the name -ua-view-transition-fade-in/out.

3. The CSS animations for the counter (the View Transition area named counter) are configured here. The CSS selectors here are some of the pseudo-elements automatically created during the transition. The -old pseudo-element represents a screenshot of the old DOM state that should somehow disappear or ”go away“ from the viewport and the -new pseudo-element represents a live version of the final DOM state that should be brought into sight.

So, overall, this code selects a portion of the page and animates it independently from the rest of the page during Turbo Frames DOM updates. Behind the scenes, the default cross-fade for the rest of the page still also takes place, it just is not visible because all its elements are visually identical. The result looks like this:

A few initial tips & tricks

Does this work for Turbo Drive visits, too?

Sure it does and it’s actually pretty easy! All we have to do is define the same event handler as we did above but attach it to the turbo:before-render event instead. By default we’ll get a cross-fade animation of the whole page during Turbo Drive page visits.

Do not try to ”name“ the Turbo Frame itself

When playing with Turbo Frame View Transitions I first tried to use a custom animation for the whole Turbo Frame element by naming it via the view-transition-name property. For some reason, this does not work and you end up with a very cryptic and misleading error message in the console (yes I did have the contain property in the CSS declaration):

Aborting transition. Element must contain paint or layout for view-transition-name : counter

So, when using custom animations, an element from inside the Frame must be selected and named.

Debugging View Transitions

Since View Transitions are technically just normal CSS animations, they can be inspected with the Animations panel in the Dev Tools. Also, the automatically created pseudo-elements are visible in the Elements tab during the transitions:

Conclusions

I confess I am quite excited about the new View Transitions API. Among the things I particularly like about it are the following:

• It is surprisingly easy to plug this inside Hotwire Turbo and you get the default cross-fade transition animation immediately for free (in latest Chrome-like browsers, that is).
• Since this is implemented natively in the browser, the animations are highly optimized and performant.
• View Transitions should allow (today or in the future) building highly interactive transitions similar to those in Material Design.
• There is some initial support for Multi-Page Applications, too, which is great news because we can bring transition animations declared in CSS to our old but gold apps.
• It should be possible to use a different animation based on the ”direction“ of the visit (Back/Forward) using the Navigation API (also still experimental and not very well supported, though).

Things I am still concerned about:

• Browser support: the Firefox team evaluates it, the Safari team is silent. This will be a log run and making a polyfill is probably too difficult. For web sites where transition animations are critical, this is still a no go.

• If you’re not careful enough, the transition feels more fluid but also a little bit slower. The reason for it is that View Transitions start the animations at the moment when both the old and new DOM states are already rendered. This means that the exit animation is delayed until new content is available and until that time, nothing happens. Also, the entry animations for the new state usually delay its appearance a little bit more.

  This is not a problem of View Transitions themselves but rather a more generic one. If the exit animation (e.g. a fade out) started immediately after user interaction (e.g. a link click), sometimes the user would have to stare at a blank page until the new page content is grabbed, rendered and run through an entry animation. Still, some kind of support for this scenario (possibly with custom loaders or skeletons) would be nice.

• Tailwind support: I think the current Tailwind syntax does not allow targeting the HTML document-connected pseudo-elements so we have to resort to custom CSS (which is not a big problem, actually).

• All transitions target the whole page, there is currently no option to make, say, two components (Frames) animate totally independently. An initial proposal for ”scoped transitions“ can be found here.

Overall, I like this feature and wish it matures enough and gets wider support soon!

true, but HTML-only websites are often pretty clunky

infuriatingly, if HTML had just a bit more oomph, we could make a lot better websites with it, but they haven't been moving HTML forward as a hypermedia for decades now (see https://htmx.org for what I mean, they could implement this concept in the browser in a week, and it would change web development dramatically)

the upcoming view transitions API will help:

https://github.com/WICG/view-transitions

but, still, there are some really obvious and simple things that could be done to make HTML much more compelling (let's start by making PUT, PATCH and DELETE available in HTML!)

Cool answer: Look at shared element transition. this is gonna be really cool one day, sadly not yet out of the proposal state... https://github.com/WICG/shared-element-transitions

Native features faster: Quickest path to utilizing native features/UX improvements once they are released, no need to wait for a third party implementation. Example: shared element transitions first came to native, then were replicated on the web.

Lol yes, can’t edit now sorry.

1: https://github.com/WICG/shared-element-transitions

I took the experimental page transition API (a.k.a. shared element transitions) for a test drive with SvelteKit, and the result was pretty slick. You’ll need Chrome Canary with the chrome://flags/#document-transition flag enabled if you want to try this one out yourself — the original tweet has a video if you don’t want to jump through those hoops. There’s a live demo and a GitHub repo if you want to see how it was accomplished.

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "yet"

There's also the developer guide https://github.com/WICG/shared-element-transitions/blob/main/developer-guide.md.

Finally, for our front end, we’re going to be pairing Next.js with the great combination of TailwindCSS and shadcn/ui so we can focus on building the functionality of the app and let them handle making it look awesome!

You can use any frontend framework you want — react-based tooling, however, has a natural advantage as it models everything as a function of state, which can map 1:1 with the concept in Burr. In the demo app we use react, react-query, and tailwind, but we’ll be skipping over this largely (it is not central to the purpose of the post).

Tailwind CSS: A utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom designs.

First, you need to make sure that you have a working Tailwind CSS project…

Tailwind CSS

With better CSS approaches like TailwindCSS and Vanilla Extract (which we're heavily using) it's much easier to maintain the UI and make sure it doesn't change unexpectedly. No more conflicting CSS classes, much less CSS specificity issues and much less CSS code in general.

This app was built with Svelte Kit, Tailwind CSS, and many other technologies. For a full rundown, please visit the GitHub repository

Unlike Tailwind, which has over 77,000 stars on GitHub, Mojo CSS has about 200 stars on GitHub. But the Mojo CSS documentation is fairly good and you can find most of the information you’ll need there.

JavaScript React Flowbite Tailwind Firebase - Auth, Database, and Hosting Vite

- Performance is a feature.

Another common interpretation of brutalism is aesthetic, reacting to overly complicated user interfaces by creating simpler, more direct ones. Tailwind CSS (https://tailwindcss.com), one of today's most popular CSS libraries, promotes this approach in its component examples. There's also a neat library I've seen recently called "Neobrutalism Components" for React that I like (https://neobrutalism-components.vercel.app), providing components with a similar look and feel to Gumroad. This might more accurately be called 'Neo-Brutalism,' as noted in the comments.

A more engineering-centric interpretation of Brutalism focuses on form, structure, and efficiency, drawing significantly from brutalist architecture principles. Apart from the user interface itself, most mobile, desktop, and web applications are extremely bloated and often perform worse than sites from 10 years ago did. While one HTML file might be "less brutalist" than the original HN site, it is substantially more brutalist than any HN mobile app in existence, and offers nearly identical functionality.

A broader interpretation of brutalism, which could be termed 'Meta-Brutalism,' is embodied in the overall experience on this site through UX flows. Yes, in the strictest sense, the original HN site is more Brutalist in many ways, but it only shows 30 articles at a time and does not function as a PWA. For this site, the experience of reading 10 stories is arguably less brutalist, but for quickly browsing through several pages and skimming articles (which is how I read HN) it is a lot faster, and in my opinion, more Brutalist.

My primary inspiration was addressing software and tool bloat in UIs rather than strictly adhering to every principle set forth by David Bryant Copeland. I don't find it convincing that this site "isn't brutalist" compared to really any other experience apart from the Main HN site, and I would argue the overall experience is more brutalist in its performance and scrolling behavior.

As a side note: I generally don't like Brutalist architecture that much although I believe it is unfairly maligned. I visited the Salk Institute once and enjoyed it though (https://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-l...).