thomasxiii's comments

Not dumb at all. Apologies for that! We'll work on honing our messaging to avoid this confusion.

We have a lot of features already built that the video doesn't highlight:

1. Setting arbitrary breakpoints for responsive design, which will export all the necessary media queries. 2. Reusable components – save them to your library, pull them out on any page, edit them in one spot and update all instances. 3. Reusable styles - save a style, apply it anywhere, edit it in one spot… you get the idea. 4. UI Kits - load in the wireframing kit to easily drag and drop flexible components to design with. Those components can then be morphed into other elements so you don't have to throw away your wireframes. 5. Multiple pages - comes in really handy with components. save a header, apply it to multiple pages and manage it in one spot. 6. Interactivity - add an interaction class to an element and Macaw will auto-generate variables needed for interactivity. 7. Style guides - Macaw will abstract all the useful bits of your document (grids, swatches, components, etc) and generate a style guide for quick access to the styles.

…and more :)

We're not sure what we'll charge just yet, but it will be a fixed price.

I really wanted a design tool that was fluid like Photoshop but thought like a developer. I left my job at MIT, partnered with a good friend and started building it. It's been seven months and we're proud to finally demo it publicly. We'd love to hear your thoughts!

Hey guys, thanks for checking this out. It was a really fun project to build! There are plenty of bugs to fix and devices to test. If you'd like to help, shoot me a pull request: https://github.com/thomasxiii/lenticular.js.

I totally agree with you. Implementing this with WebGL would be much, much easier. However, I believe there is a need for lighting effects for simple interfaces built with HTML and CSS. The library is more for intermediate developers who want to add a touch of lighting without heavy programming.

Modeling 3D objects – like the Photon crane – with CSS is absurd! It was done solely for that initial "neato!" effect.

Hope that helps clear some things up.

I'm going to be looking into this. I hate putting "WebKit only" on things, but this was the simplest solution I could find. Thank you for this!

It is indeed buggy and FF lags like crazy. The Chromium team has looked into some of the issues and many of them have been fixed in Canary; give that a go!

No, there isn't a way to access everything without a 3d capable browser. This was more of a time constraint than anything else.

Thank you for clarifying the depth-sorting issue. I've perhaps overgeneralized in that area. So, will browsers render interpenetration differently based on the hardware?

You're absolutely right. Developing for multiple browsers is just so damn tedious. For experimental stuff like this I stick to webkit.

Pop that baby open in Safari.

I know :/

It's written only for webkit because I don't have the time to cross-browser check experiments. Can't wait until we don't need browser prefixes.

Built an analog CSS clock of my own without the use of any pre-rendered images (http://attasi.com/experiments/analog-clock/). Surprisingly, keeping time with CSS is far more accurate than with JS. The animation is also waaaay smoother.