13 ms·
They are really nice but I really don't see the point why they are implemented in css. Most of the images make use of the capability of directly using gradients
by leni536 12y ago
They are really nice but I really don't see the point why they are implemented in css. Most of the images make use of the capability of directly using gradients in the background-image property. Of course it could be easily replaced by the appropriate svg element.
For the lollypop shadow I would make use of the 3D transformation capabilities of CSS3. AFAIK svg is only capable of affine transformations (why?) while CSS3 can handle perspective transformations too.
- sanketsaurav 12y agoIt's but a proof-of-concept.
- vlunkr 12y agoBy creating images in css you don't have to load any additional assets. But I suspect these are more just for the author to show off her skills :) *EDIT his -> her
- inflagranti 12y agoAFAIK you can embed images in CSS using data URIs, so there goes that argument and only the show-off one remains ;)
- vlunkr 12y agoYou can do that, but I think embedded images are slightly larger than the original because the way they are encoded. But still, images are more practical since these would be a cross-browser nightmare.
- nfoz 12y ago*her skills
- jtheory 12y agoI'd say it's an artistic constraint. It forced her to search through everything possible in CSS (an obviously-limited medium), and get creative to convince it to draw these.
- u124556 12y agoYou can inline svg.
- leni536 12y agoBy creating images in css you don't have to load any additional assets. You can embed svg elements directly into html.
- bjz_ 12y ago> I really don't see the point why they are implemented in css Working within constraints is fun. Art is fun.
- fibonachos 12y agoAgreed. I think this is less about practicality than it is about creating art with an unconventional set of tools or materials. In that regard I would say the artist pulled off something pretty impressive.