This is a read-only archive of the Framer Community on Facebook.

What is Framer? Join the Community
Return to index
Bhaskar Ravi
Posted Jan 10 - Read on Facebook

This is a question regarding Framer Beta specifically, so it doesn't apply to most users. Still want to get the group's thoughts:

It's is an experimental feature, but I'm confused as to why the team has enabled us to target top level shapes in code mode? This starts to blur the lines between shapes and frames, and makes things more confusing IMO.

What's the primary difference between a frame and a rectangle now? I'd love to know the intention of making shapes targetable - at the moment seems a bit redundant, especially when shapes were serving their own unique purpose before.

7 Comments

Josh Peters

A rectangle is an SVG graphic now. It can be exported to SVG and brought into Sketch, Figma, Illustrator. A frame can only be outputted as a raster graphic like PNG, JPG

Josh Peters

Previously they were just what are referred to as "frames" or layers you'd create in code. They were not editable SVG graphics

Josh Peters

Ex. Create icons for your tab bar in Framer using the pen tool and other shape tools. Those are SVGs. Wrap those individually in a Frame and then manipulate the background of the Frame for hover states, etc.

You can manipulate the SVG graphic inside a Frame with something akin to this:

ovalContain.children[0].fill = "red"

ovalContain is a frame
children[0] is the SVG object
In this case we are telling the SVG object to change its fill color to red

I'm not an expert at any of this. Still learning along with the rest of you

Bhaskar Ravi

I understand the inherent difference between the two - I'm just trying to understand the intent in making shapes targetable. Advanced animations with shapes are starting to get away from prototyping in a big way - no longer are you experimenting with micro animations / layout, but now you're developing advanced graphic / path animations which takes no more time to develop in production.

I am not seeing how it fits with Framer's core purpose.

Josh Peters

Sorry. Could have read the question better.

Torrey Rice

I haven't used the beta but if I understand you correctly, I'm personally all for this change. The inability to target arbitrary shapes is in its self arbitrary. If I just want to animate a circle pulsing it's not very intuitive that you must first create a frame and then put a circle inside it. Not only is it not intuitive, it's just added work that is only there because of an arbitrary distinction between a shape and a frame.

Personally I'm more surprised that they moved to this Frame-only targeting model in the first place.

Read the entire post on Facebook