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:

6 fast (native) alternatives for VSCode

VSCode has architectural performance limits. Compare six fast, native code editors built for lower resource usage.

Shalitha Suranga
Jan 9, 2026 ⋅ 10 min read

Moving beyond RxJS: A guide to TanStack Pacer

Build a React infinite scroll gallery with TanStack Pacer. Learn debouncing, throttling, batching, and rate limiting without RxJS complexity.

Emmanuel John
Jan 9, 2026 ⋅ 8 min read
the replay january 7

The Replay (1/7/26): React’s biggest problem, TanStack’s evolution, and more

Discover what’s new in The Replay, LogRocket’s newsletter for dev and engineering leaders, in the January 7th issue.

Matt MacCormack
Jan 7, 2026 ⋅ 31 sec read
jack herrington useeffectevent

React has finally solved its biggest problem: The joys of useEffectEvent

Jack Herrington breaks down how React’s new useEffectEvent Hook stabilizes behavior, simplifies timers, and enables predictable abstractions.

Jack Herrington
Jan 7, 2026 ⋅ 5 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

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