4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - kilburn 8y ago
      Well, this has been a surprise for me. I must concede that Webflow feels much better than GrapesJS, both in general polish and in functionality. I do see a class of power users (agencies, designers) using that now. Let's hope that GrapesJS can reach that level of utility and polish someday. Kudos to the authors and my best wishes for Graphes' future!

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.
  - kilburn 8y ago
    Well, this has been a surprise for me. I must concede that Webflow feels much better than GrapesJS, both in general polish and in functionality. I do see a class of power users (agencies, designers) using that now. Let's hope that GrapesJS can reach that level of utility and polish someday. Kudos to the authors and my best wishes for Graphes' future!