5 ms·

I'm impressed by this builder. It is without any doubt an awesome technical achievement. However, I don't picture who will be using it in this form: a) It feel

I'm impressed by this builder. It is without any doubt an awesome technical achievement. However, I don't picture who will be using it in this form: a) It feels too advanced for non-technical users. Flex properties, CSS classes, weird px/vh units, etc.. It just seems very hard to understand for non-technical users. b) For technical users it just feels... clumsy. It is hard to pinpoint the box you want to change, it is hard to move things around, it is hard to find the property you want, etc.. I can't imagine myself using this editor over any of the several awesome "css toolkits" and their pre-made templates/widgets (bootstrap, bulma, uikit, etc.). Does anyone here have experience on a project done with this editor (or something similar) where the client ended up actually using and appreciating it?

pavlov 8y ago
I don't think you deserve downvotes for asking this question. The technical/non-technical dichotomy is generally too simple. In creative fields, there's a substantial number of users who fall in the middle; technically oriented but not into programming. Think of 3D modeling tools: you need a definite technology-oriented mindset to master the concepts in something like Maya or Blender — yet these users usually steer clear of writing scripts or plugins themselves. In web development, the field is more muddled because so much of what you might want to create will require custom programming (much more so than in 3D animation). But even on a professional level, there is clear demand for people who are experts in CSS and HTML but not necessarily JavaScript or back-end. Visual tools can be a good entry into this world and can also be very efficient in the hand of freelance designers, although IMO they're quite far off from being useful for professional teams (primarily because the tools are not adaptable to team workflows and tooling, of which there's a veritable jungle in the front-end world).
manigandham 8y ago
There's a giant market for these tools. It's a common misconception that "technical user" means someone who deals with code but that's just a narrow subset. Have you seen Photoshop these days? Or illustrator, indesign, after effects, or any other graphics and layout tools? They're not exactly simple and require the same kind of technical skills as coding up some HTML. Visual products are usually best created using visual tools and the success of Squarespace, Wix and Webflow seems to show that this trend is only increasing for websites.
- kilburn 8y ago
  > There's a giant market for these tools. I'm sure it sells and people would pay for it. What I'm not so sure about is whether it actually works (in the sense that people end up using it and creating sensible pages they're proud to own). This is why I asked for some anecdata about happy clients. > Have you seen Photoshop these days? Or illustrator, indesign, after effects, or any other graphics and layout tools? I haven't seen any layout tool that felt anywhere nearly as good and/or practical to use as photoshop is for editing graphics or InDesign is to prepare documents/flyers/etc. The problem of the modern web is that a well-built page should work from a cellphone all the way up to big desktop screens. IMHO this is an unsolved problem for all GUI tools still. Lastly, "technical user" doesn't need to mean "deals with code", except when "dealing with code" is the most efficient approach to reach a professional result. Just like CAD people use their program's built-in console all the time, I would argue that producing professional websites pretty much requires fiddling with html/css (and even some javascript) nowadays.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    It works given the success of the companies I quoted. People dont keep paying and using tools that dont work. Websites are just a different kind of complexity in a constantly changing environment that hasn't had good tools so far, especially if that tool itself is a webapp, which I think only further creates demand for these kind of projects to exist and get better.
    - kilburn 8y ago
      All of your examples have huge collections of templates and employ lots of wizard-guided steps that land you to a pretty generated page to get started. These are much easier to use than the "power-editor" showcased here. How do you know that people actually care about the "power-editor" and aren't just paying for that (and domain registration, hosting, maintenance)?
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Have you seen Webflow? https://webflow.com/designer https://webflow.com/designer Designers and agencies building sites is their main customer base.
jameslk 8y ago
It looks like a free/open source version of Webflow, which has a good amount of users (Webflow caters to designers, marketers), so I definitely think it fills a need. It's basically today's version of Frontpage/Dreamweaver. I'd use it to hack together something quickly before refining it in code.
roywiggins 8y ago
It seems to sit somewhere near Dreamweaver did in the before-times. That had a big following among people who didn't want to code but were up for learning a fiddly, slightly technical tool that was at least broadly wysiwyg.

pavlov 8y ago

I don't think you deserve downvotes for asking this question. The technical/non-technical dichotomy is generally too simple. In creative fields, there's a substantial number of users who fall in the middle; technically oriented but not into programming. Think of 3D modeling tools: you need a definite technology-oriented mindset to master the concepts in something like Maya or Blender — yet these users usually steer clear of writing scripts or plugins themselves. In web development, the field is more muddled because so much of what you might want to create will require custom programming (much more so than in 3D animation). But even on a professional level, there is clear demand for people who are experts in CSS and HTML but not necessarily JavaScript or back-end. Visual tools can be a good entry into this world and can also be very efficient in the hand of freelance designers, although IMO they're quite far off from being useful for professional teams (primarily because the tools are not adaptable to team workflows and tooling, of which there's a veritable jungle in the front-end world).

manigandham 8y ago

There's a giant market for these tools. It's a common misconception that "technical user" means someone who deals with code but that's just a narrow subset. Have you seen Photoshop these days? Or illustrator, indesign, after effects, or any other graphics and layout tools? They're not exactly simple and require the same kind of technical skills as coding up some HTML. Visual products are usually best created using visual tools and the success of Squarespace, Wix and Webflow seems to show that this trend is only increasing for websites.

kilburn 8y ago
> There's a giant market for these tools. I'm sure it sells and people would pay for it. What I'm not so sure about is whether it actually works (in the sense that people end up using it and creating sensible pages they're proud to own). This is why I asked for some anecdata about happy clients. > Have you seen Photoshop these days? Or illustrator, indesign, after effects, or any other graphics and layout tools? I haven't seen any layout tool that felt anywhere nearly as good and/or practical to use as photoshop is for editing graphics or InDesign is to prepare documents/flyers/etc. The problem of the modern web is that a well-built page should work from a cellphone all the way up to big desktop screens. IMHO this is an unsolved problem for all GUI tools still. Lastly, "technical user" doesn't need to mean "deals with code", except when "dealing with code" is the most efficient approach to reach a professional result. Just like CAD people use their program's built-in console all the time, I would argue that producing professional websites pretty much requires fiddling with html/css (and even some javascript) nowadays.
- manigandham 8y ago
  It works given the success of the companies I quoted. People dont keep paying and using tools that dont work. Websites are just a different kind of complexity in a constantly changing environment that hasn't had good tools so far, especially if that tool itself is a webapp, which I think only further creates demand for these kind of projects to exist and get better.
  - kilburn 8y ago
    All of your examples have huge collections of templates and employ lots of wizard-guided steps that land you to a pretty generated page to get started. These are much easier to use than the "power-editor" showcased here. How do you know that people actually care about the "power-editor" and aren't just paying for that (and domain registration, hosting, maintenance)?
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Have you seen Webflow? https://webflow.com/designer https://webflow.com/designer Designers and agencies building sites is their main customer base.

jameslk 8y ago

It looks like a free/open source version of Webflow, which has a good amount of users (Webflow caters to designers, marketers), so I definitely think it fills a need. It's basically today's version of Frontpage/Dreamweaver. I'd use it to hack together something quickly before refining it in code.

roywiggins 8y ago

It seems to sit somewhere near Dreamweaver did in the before-times. That had a big following among people who didn't want to code but were up for learning a fiddly, slightly technical tool that was at least broadly wysiwyg.