Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Jmpress.js - a jQuery version of impress.js (github.com)
103 points by instakill 2203 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 25 comments

It will be a shame if this port garners comparable attention to the original impress.js. Looking at both source codes, the meat of the original project is in the smart css3 transformations and related js.

We all know what that powerful 'jQuery' keyword does for a JavaScript project. Maybe I'm being cynical.

"We all know what that powerful 'jQuery' keyword does for a JavaScript project."

Could you please elaborate on this?

jQuery is, not so arguably, the most popular general Javascript prototyping framework.

A 'regular' Javascript library would likely not get as much attention as its jQuery equivalent due to all the momentum behind jQuery itself.

I think this comes from the idea that it will be easier to integrate/extend understand, as much of the complex functionality moves out of the project and into jQuery. That means that often the project becomes smaller and easier to digest.

What's up with all of these Prezi-style Javascript presentations recently? I realize this is a jQ version of something that was posted the other day, but all of this flashy Javascript is really promoting a second coming of Flash Internet of the 90s™.

As a new presentation style, this doesn't impress me any more than a PowerPoint does. It makes me sick flipping and turning through a website, and though I realize it has some potentially cool uses, stuff like this will, for the most part, be abused.

something that promotes the ability for one to be creative should not be suppressed solely for its potential abuse. the impress.js/prezi style of presentations are clever and provide a little something extra to the normally mundane world of slide decks. everyone could just throw things in lists and it would have roughly the same informative impact -- but presentations are more than that. the best presentations should invoke an emotional reaction -- which these style of presentations might make more possible.

Yes, I realize that, but there is still something to be said about the direction animation-heavy websites are going. Because of the novelty of presentation styles like this, I would argue that they're a weaker form of presenting information. It certainly draws the audience away from what's actually on the slides.

For instance, the first time I went through this site, I read the first slide, then flicked through the pages and only upon a second visit to the site did I actually read what it had to say. This obviously isn't the case for everyone, I know.

I wonder what's with all the negative response… OK, Jmpress.js depends on jQuery and has narrower browser support than Impress.js. Yet it makes little sense to compare a JavaScript presentation framework to ‘a jQuery plugin to build a website on the infinite canvas’. These are different things.

Perhaps the whole issue is with the naming and the fact that one was based on another's code.

I completely agree with you. I tried it yesterday it is completely simple to use.

I definitely think that it is the right way to name it Jmpress.js, so he doesn't take any credit from the inventor.

This is completely broken in firefox. The slides all load on one page and nothing else happens. It works in chrome though.

Yep, same in IE. Chrome only I'm guessing. So useless for the real world.

Does anybody have any experience in creating a 3D interface for a business application? It seems that what video games do really well has never transferred over into the "real work" category of software.

Secondly, are impress & jmpress going to cause more 3D interface innovation?

You should've written it in Dart or CoffeScript. That would be even more trendy and pointless.

Please, don't repeat good projects without making any improvements. And do NEVER use jQuery only to say that you use it.

Would a decrease in overall size count as an improvement? If you are already loading jQuery sometimes it's nice to use jQuery "native" libraries because there is less replicated code and consequently smaller files.

Just a thought.

That was my first thought too. But after looking into it further, the jQuery implementation weighs in at 11.549 kb [1] vs 9.67 kb [2] for the original.

Am I missing something? Seems pretty pointless to me as well.

[1] https://github.com/shama/jmpress.js/blob/master/js/jmpress.j...

[2] https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/blob/master/js/impress....

This literally locked-up my newish MBP and forced me to do a hard reboot. Running Chrome and 10.6. Craziness.

Something is wrong with your MBP. Maybe you have a bad RAM stick in it.

To test for bad ram, run Memtest. It'll run overnight and look at all the parts of your ram.


Back button doesn't work. Fatality.

Back button worked for me. What browser are you using?

It seems to me that the back button doesnt work (Chrome on Mac OS X) if you click the links in the top left navigation. It does work if you use the arrow keys, though.

Exactly. The first thing I though when trying to return from the Rails, RVM, RSpec & Jenkins presentation this morning was "What an asshole. Why didn't he just use impress.js so I wouldn't have to hit the back button 20 times?"

If you're going to port an application to your own flavor of X, which people are wont to do, please don't miss the most important points. Some of which are easily discernible.

very cool. nice intro

Very cool and simple!

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact