Definitely not supposed to, we're pushing a fix for that. Bit of a rush on the marketing site for launch...

There were some definite compatibility issues we ran into and while jQuery 2 isn't perfect, it's pretty good, good enough we felt confident switching back from Zepto. Nothing against Zepto, just pragmatism.

You don't like our Yeti? Aww. I won't tell him.

We tested pretty extensively, it looks okay...what device?

Tested and duplicated on an iPad air here. It's Safari's issue, though.

There's a bug in mobile Safari that I can replicate on other sites. Scrolling on Craigslist's map view when the page is loading also crashes the browser, which leads me to believe it's something related to attaching to events in certain states.

First, a big thanks to all the Zurb folks who work on Foundation, I can't wait to dig into the new release!

Just for the sake of another data point (albeit an obscure one): The page crashed Chrome on my iPhone 4 running iOS 7.03, both with other pages open and as the only page.

This is on 7.0.2 on an iPhone 4s. Crashes Safari reliably 4 times in a row. Maybe it's just my bad luck.

Anyway, looking at it on my laptop now. It looks great!

Hmm, they should, have a light grey background. Maybe too light?

I could see it after fiddling with my contrast setting. I am not sure how bad it is for other people.

We'll see if we can amp it up a bit.

There's a media query available (with prefixes, right now) for pixel density – a retina MBP reports it as 2 whereas a standard one reports it as 1. So you can have a media query for a pixel density >= 2, etc.

> with prefixes, right now

Right, which is what concerns me. So is this the expectation?

    <img src="small.jpg" data-interchange="[normal.jpg, (only screen)], [medium.jpg, only screen and (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 2), 
        only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2/1), 
        only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), 
        only screen and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2),
        only screen and (max-width: 749px)]">

Lamentably, yes. I'd suspect the prefixes will drop off this year but we're sort of stuck with the browser adoption in this case.

From what I've heard srcset is the likely eventual standard (as oppose to the picture element) but the timeline there is...long and murky.

Unfortunately the browser vendors get to make this up as they go along and they seem unwilling to take into consideration the many developers which are more in favor of the <picture> element because its so much easier to write.

Naturally, if/whenever it is implemented we'll all scuttle back to our keyboards and play with srcset .

Correct.

Poor wording - we match the media queries and the last valid match is loaded, not each in sequence. We'll make that clearer.

Checking network speed is actually a great idea - we'll investigate this. The reason we use the img src (which as you noted means you might load two images) is twofold: so that if your image is the same aspect ratio, you'll get an immediate load of something before the better image comes in (without which you'll have a really nasty reflow). This also guarantees you'll get something that works if JS is disabled or unavailable.

Please submit pull requests or issues for ways we can make this better, we're all ears.