Open code, practice, and notes →
Download source with English comments · for reading
Motion · 06 Variants
Series contents · Technology map
Stage: State and Transition · Editable example · Storage ID: motion-step-06
Goals and learning outcomes
- Learning outcome: Explain the role of Named states. Input case: Changing the selection between two cards.
- Deliverable: A table of parent and child target states. Connect your rationale for handling Propagation to the code.
Prerequisites
Prepare the results of the Keyframes and Times exercises from Unit 5, “Keyframes”.
Key concepts and explanations
Named states
variants groups visual states by name. A name can be selected from domain state.
Propagation
A parent variant can propagate to children. Giving a child its own animate changes this relationship.
Practice setup
First check the execution scope guidance on the example screen. The following describes the environment needed to extend the assignment in a separate project. The existing motion-01·02·03 examples are limited examples based on Motion JS animate. For React layout, AnimatePresence, and hooks exercises, install motion in a separate local React project and import from motion/react. Do not assume JSX runs directly in the editor; preserve CSP and isolation.
The linked example is a starting point. It does not implement every task below. Complete work beyond its supported scope in a separate project.
Practice tasks
- In src/day-6.tsx of a separate exercise project, define idle and selected variants for a card and its icon. Use the existing Unit 1·14·28 examples only as starting points.
- Input condition: Changing the selection between two cards. Baseline: Inherited from the parent. Run under the baseline condition, then record observations and errors in notes/day-6.md.
- Variable to change: Child control; new value: Independent animate. Run again with the same input path. Deliverable to save: A table of parent and child target states. Hypothesis to test: The path through which state propagates to the child changes. Compare it with the actual results and record whether they agree and the causes of any differences.
Variables to observe
| Variable | Baseline | Change | Expected change / hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child control | Inherited from the parent | Independent animate | The path through which state propagates to the child changes. |
Predictions in this table are not measured results. Change one condition at a time and record why the actual result differs.
Completion criteria
- Required deliverable: A table of parent and child target states. You have results for both the baseline and changed conditions, allowing a comparison of 2 conditions, and have recorded the input values and execution environment.
- Your explanation of the differences between the two conditions connects both concepts: Named states and Propagation. For unexpected items, give at least 1 cause or reason they remain unresolved.
Self-check
- Which processing stage does Named states affect in this exercise? Input case: Changing the selection between two cards.
- Variable to change: Child control. Hypothesis to test: The path through which state propagates to the child changes. Did the actual results agree with the hypothesis? Explain your evidence in terms of Propagation.
Official references
Linked example and execution scope
Example source · Runtime environments and limits
Interactive Variants experiment with resource cleanup.
Source code and records are not overwritten automatically. Resetting an existing example also preserves your notes.