21–26 of 26 posts
Stunning result in this case, and with minimal assets (an image, some CSS) - great! Sadly doesn't obviously transfer well to anything other than a flat glossy object though.
(Best in Safari) I know this is just an experimental page, but it still makes me shudder to see this kind of phrase reappearing on web sites.
(Best in Safari) I know this is just an experimental page, but it still makes me shudder to see this kind of phrase reappearing on web sites.
On an actual production web page? Sure, that's awful. Blocking people on other browsers from viewing (like Apple did with their HTML5 showcase)? Yeah, that's bad. Demonstrating a technique that still requires vendor prefixes, and not applying all of the vendor prefixes that work? Well, that's just lazy.
But informing people that the effects you are demonstrating work best in a particular browser because the other browsers don't happen to implement those features yet, or aren't fully compatible yet, isn't bad. It's just preventing confusion for people who come there and don't see the given effect.
In order for web standards to progress, we need experimentation. We need early implementations, that test out the space, and we need designers who try out these implementations and see what you can do with them. And yeah, when that happens, they will be experimenting with features that aren't supported everywhere, and will create examples that only work on one or two browsers.
Complain when you see this in production. Complain when you see people recommending user agent sniffing. But for early stage experimentation? It's not a problem.