Mitch, There is a selector test out there that can let you "compare" the other frameworks along side jquery (http://mootools.net/slickspeed/), but take it all with a grain of salt. You can do a search in the group for "slickspeed" and you will find the many debates about selector speeds and pluses and minuses of a lot of weight into them.
The "Ken Burns effects" are more then achievable with jquery, it is all about taking the time to code it out and making a easy to use plugin. On 7/28/07, Mitchell Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you Ben that is a very good thread. > > > > Seems the major reasons why people pick jQuery as there framework over > Mootools, and others, has to do with the super documentation, the community, > support, the large number of plugins and of course a whole bunch of > technical reasons about its prowess as a tool. > > > > I was looking for a kind of comparison chart/review of all the popular > frameworks, would that not be a great thing to have? > > > > Reason I asked about Mootools is I love there slideshow. It allows doing > the Ken Burns effects that was mentioned Nicolas last week. Check out this > wicked class demo: > > > > http://www.electricprism.com/aeron/slideshow/ > > > > The things that it *does* that are lacking in jQuery are *pan and a real > image zoom (from the center*). If you watch his documentaries you will see > it fades in a small part of an image, then zooms out and pans at the same > time. > > > > Hmmmm I wonder if that could be done using some of the Interface Elements > effects? > > > > Mitch > > > > *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling > *Sent:* Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:20 PM > *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: Mootools > > > > There were a few length discussion that may help you: > > > -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
