Please see this jsfiddle . The trick to get it to work was to make the height/width of #Finish 1px less than #Start. However, I don't want to have to change the height/width. I just want the div to move (I also discovered that I could get it to work with height/width of 110px if I added a border. However, I don't want a border). So, my question is, is this a bug? Shouldn't I be able to use transfer to move a div without changing the height/width or adding a border? If there is a way, please let me know.
3 Answers, 1 is accepted
If you are just looking for moving a div around without changing its dimensions, you may simply animate its left/top css values or translatex/translatey transform values using CSS only. The transfer animation targets the complex case of scaling and moving an element to another one, while maintaining the expected route.
Regards,Petyo
the Telerik team
Rank 1
P.S. If you should decide to follow either suggestion, I'd also like to add that it would be greatly helpful the fx
didn't "detached (the element) from its current position and re-attached in the body element" (source) if at all possible. This can make coding some situations impossible (e.g. sometimes you need to use .position() of an elements with a relative positioned parent rather than .offset() when moving elements around). Thanks.
Thank you for your suggestion. As the mechanics of the two transitions share nothing in common, such transition would most likely be introduced as a separate one, should we decide to implement it.
In general, I would prefer to avoid the re-attachment limbo as it causes various inconveniences like the one you describe; unfortunately this is the only working approach in several complex layout cases, which were discovered during our edge case testing.
Petyo
the Telerik team