3 ms·
because a lot of people wouldnt go to the bother of using fully fledged javascript solutions for a tiny visual flourish. most of these css techniques degrade v
by daleharvey 16y ago
because a lot of people wouldnt go to the bother of using fully fledged javascript solutions for a tiny visual flourish.
most of these css techniques degrade very very well and are incredibly simple to implement, if it is a "this site MUST have this animation", then best to go down the jquery route, if its a "this will be nice to add" then doing it in css3 only saves a ton of bother.
- metamemetics 16y ago>daleharvey: most of these css techniques degrade very very well >j79: In addition (since you mention compatibility), adding this to a site wouldn't "break" it The linked page looks like shit in Internet Explor 6,7, and 8 and is completely unviewable in Opera due to masking errors. It degrades horrendously and I would consider it broken.
- j79 16y agoYou're right, it does. But in fairness, it's a demo for webkit browsers. I'm guessing the author wasn't too concerned for IE. If the demo page was something super simple like: #links{ -webkit-transition-duration: 0.5s; } #links:hover { color: red; } Super simple and it wouldn't break anything. Basically, just because the author didn't consider IE users on a Webkit demo doesn't mean CSS3 is broken (or doesn't degrade properly.)