"Please use Chrome to view the examples". Seriously? Let's better design for the web (i.e. standards) not for (one particular) browser.
There is no reason to make a website "only supported by browser XY", as it sometimes has been done in the past.
So don't get used to this, but use feature detection. In this demos, it would have been enough to mark which demos work with which browser. (actually, you mostly just need to mark those few, that don't work.)
In the end you did it once, but if you had linked to MDN for each property, that would increase my curiosity to dive into the CSS property even more… 😄
There is no need to be so harsh. You can give critical feedback without coming off this way. Also, the author did give the info in the article that some of these properties are not fully cross-browser yet, but that should not bar authors from talking about them.
Sorry, did not mean to be harsh. If this is what you've read it as, I apologize. This just makes me upset a little, because browser diversity is important.
Yes, it's mentioned, but as I said: Don't get used to it (=creating for one browser).
We shouldn't limit ourselves as developers and shouldn't be afraid to try out new things. If one browser doesn't support a certain property we can always add a fallback and make use of new capabilities on the browser that does support the property. We don't shy away from adding non-supported javascript on browser by adding polyfills and feature detection methods then why should we shy away from trying new capabilities in CSS.
And by stating - "Please use Chrome to view the examples", I am not advocating Chrome only websites but the reason was simple enough so that people can actually see the examples.
Okay, fine. Understood. And obviously, I agree with your polyfill/fallback part.
Anyway, I keep my point that sentences like these ("use XY for viewing this!") create a bad incentive/habit. Anyway, it gets off-topic, so let's agree to disagree. :)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
BTW some feedback about this:
There is no need to be so harsh. You can give critical feedback without coming off this way. Also, the author did give the info in the article that some of these properties are not fully cross-browser yet, but that should not bar authors from talking about them.
Thanks Sara! 🙂
Sorry, did not mean to be harsh. If this is what you've read it as, I apologize. This just makes me upset a little, because browser diversity is important.
Yes, it's mentioned, but as I said: Don't get used to it (=creating for one browser).
We shouldn't limit ourselves as developers and shouldn't be afraid to try out new things. If one browser doesn't support a certain property we can always add a fallback and make use of new capabilities on the browser that does support the property. We don't shy away from adding non-supported javascript on browser by adding polyfills and feature detection methods then why should we shy away from trying new capabilities in CSS.
And by stating - "Please use Chrome to view the examples", I am not advocating Chrome only websites but the reason was simple enough so that people can actually see the examples.
Okay, fine. Understood. And obviously, I agree with your polyfill/fallback part.
Anyway, I keep my point that sentences like these ("use XY for viewing this!") create a bad incentive/habit. Anyway, it gets off-topic, so let's agree to disagree. :)