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:

React Svelte Next JS

Remix vs. Next.js vs. SvelteKit

Compare key features of popular meta-frameworks Remix, Next.js, and SvelteKit, from project setup to styling.

Alex Merced
Feb 4, 2026 ⋅ 8 min read
replay feb 4

The Replay (2/4/26): AI-first leadership, Tailwind layoffs, and more

Discover what’s new in The Replay, LogRocket’s newsletter for dev and engineering leaders, in the February 4th issue.

Matt MacCormack
Feb 4, 2026 ⋅ 37 sec read
ken pickering ai first organization

What it actually means to be an AI-first engineering organization

AI-first isn’t about tools; it’s about how teams think, build, and decide. Ken Pickering, CTO at Scripta Insights, shares how engineering leaders can adapt.

Ken Pickering
Feb 4, 2026 ⋅ 3 min read

How to build agentic frontend applications with CopilotKit

Build context-aware, agentic frontend applications by connecting React state and actions to LLMs with CopilotKit.

Emmanuel John
Feb 3, 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

Would you be interested in joining LogRocket's developer community?

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