Why not have a little more fun? This is using a jQuery plug-in to pull some tweets.
So, as you can see, some things are happening here. Or maybe not. I tested CSS3 in Firefox, Opera, and IE8, and I'm not overly impressed. To this point, it just seems like a bigger pain in my side, for very little reward. Of course since I use Firefox, I'm partial to the user-experience other FF users have. And honestly, this looks best in FF (the versions that support CSS3.) I've added a lot more code, made my .css file invalid, and I'm not even showing the best looking site to the widest base of users. What was the point again? Some one once told me "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Will I ever use this? I'm guessing yes. In my next project? No. The one after that? No. I will use it when:
Don't get me wrong: I like it, and I'm excited about it. As far as the presentation, it gives the web developer more of the power a web designer has. And the new selectors are sweet, I can see how they would save me time (using a selector instead of making a new class to put on certain elements). But I'm more excited about HTML 5 with it's new elements built for semantically clean mark-up. You know what else I'd like to see - I want to see the ability to modify JUST the background opacity without making PNG's. If I understood correctly the rgba( 255, 255, 255, 0.75) syntax is supposed to do that, but it didn't work well for me at all (I think it worked in one browser, and that was so disappointing, I already forgot which one that was).
Call me when my wish list is complete, and I'll start using CSS3 all the time. Until then, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Unless of course a client requests it (maybe a boutique-type design client of some sort that will appreciate it?)
As an aside: I do like the design of this little page. Sure, it's kinda "disrupted" and "chunky" which could use some polishing, but the colors are nice and the background image is cool.