Jump to menu

Vote down?

  1. Bridget Stewart

    Whatever limitation invoked by css3. No graphical elements, simple fades, simple drop shadows. If css3 can’t do it, it can’t be in the design. Like I said, to each his own, but I’m not a fan. Doing a design without any use of background images sounds like limiting to me.

    This statement proves that you don’t comprehend what Andy has been explaining. He uses background images in his designs. He uses lots of imagery in his designs. He just doesn’t spend time (where possible and agreeable with his clients) forcing browsers that cannot render CSS3 to look exactly the same. There are browser differences he can live with.

    You’ve taken his article and his statements farther than he did, then argued that he is saying if anything outside of CSS3 is used, it’s bunk. The thing is, he never said that – you did.

    Do me one favor. Even if you don’t want to read the article I linked to above written by Andy Clarke, click the link anyway and just look at his site’s design. You’ll see he’s using a background image. In fact, you’ll see quite a few images being used to create visual flair. He doesn’t constrain design to CSS3 sans images. He just opts to use them wisely and where necessary, instead of everywhere to do everything.

    Both he and Dan Cederholm advocate beautiful design, even if there are differences across browsers.

    Do websites need to look exactly the same in every browser?

    Do websites need to be experienced exactly the same in every browser?