2019-07-31
787
#chrome#web design#what's new
Facundo Corradini
4338
Jul 31, 2019 ⋅ 2 min read

New in Chrome 76: The frosted glass effect with backdrop-filter

Facundo Corradini Frontend developer, CSS specialist, best cebador de mates ever.

Recent posts:

TypeScript at scale in 2026: What senior engineers should know

How senior engineers run TypeScript effectively at scale in modern codebases.

Peter Aideloje
Mar 19, 2026 ⋅ 6 min read
the replay march 18

The Replay (3/18/26): Hiring in the AI era, coding isn’t dead, and more

Discover what’s new in The Replay, LogRocket’s newsletter for dev and engineering leaders, in the March 18th issue.

Matt MacCormack
Mar 18, 2026 ⋅ 29 sec read
ken pickering ai hiring quote card

Thinking beats coding: How to hire the right engineers in the AI era

A CTO outlines his case for how leaders should prioritize complex thinking over framework knowledge when hiring engineers for the AI era.

Ken Pickering
Mar 18, 2026 ⋅ 4 min read

Exploring Vercel’s JSON Render: build dynamic UI from structured data

Build dynamic, AI-generated UI safely with Vercel’s JSON Render using structured JSON, validated components, and React.

Emmanuel John
Mar 17, 2026 ⋅ 11 min read
View all posts

2 Replies to "New in Chrome 76: The frosted glass effect with backdrop-filter"

  1. Instead of writing

    @supports (backdrop-filter: none) {

    backdrop-filter: blur(8px);

    }

    one should be writing

    @supports (backdrop-filter: blur(8px)) {

    backdrop-filter: blur(8px);

    }

    because you’re not in fact interested if the browser supports “backdrop-filter: none”, right?

    This is especially important once you realize that the same property (e.g. display) supports values with wide range of support by different UAs.

  2. Hi Mikko,

    The idea is to query the support of the property instead of the value. Querying for “backdrop-filter: none” will throw the same true / false result as querying for “backdrop-filter: 8px”, but allow us to change the value in a single place if for whatever reason we decide to do that in the future.

    It might not be such a dramatic impact in the small scale, but going with a query for property+value can lead to issues as the codebase grows and we start to have a lot of repetition and forgotten queries that doesn’t really make sense.

    Your point is certainly valid for properties such as display or position, but for most others, querying for property instead of property+value is a better approach in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hey there, want to help make our blog better?

Join LogRocket’s Content Advisory Board. You’ll help inform the type of content we create and get access to exclusive meetups, social accreditation, and swag.

Sign up now