Interactive CSS3 lighting effects(attasi.com)
attasi.com
Interactive CSS3 lighting effects
http://attasi.com/labs/ipad/
9 comments
(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.
I know this is just an experimental page, but it still makes me shudder to see this kind of phrase reappearing on web sites.
I really don't mind that sort of phrase when it's pointing out that the cutting-edge features that they are demonstrating, while they are on the standards track, currently work best in a particular browser.
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.
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.
Gotta start somewhere.
The guy's logo looks like a ripoff of the Arch logo :/
I don't get the "interactive" part? Can I interact with this? It feels like a static image to me.
Use a webkit browser.
For some weird reason his javascript only sets -webkit- prefixed CSS properties; it's quite likely this would work in firefox (and possibly eventually IE10), were it not for this.
You're absolutely right. Developing for multiple browsers is just so damn tedious. For experimental stuff like this I stick to webkit.
Pop that baby open in Safari.
I'm on Linux, so Chrome is all I've got.
Working flawlessly on Ubuntu 11.10 with Chrome 15.0.874.121
It works for me on Chrome 15 under Fedora.
Very sexy. I won't be surprised if I see this on the Apple home page one day.
This is absolutely gorgeous.
Looks fantastic :) Would be event better if it wasn't (Best in Safari)
wow, great job.
Sadly doesn't obviously transfer well to anything other than a flat glossy object though.