3 ms·

This is very interesting. I love the approach to the problem that you are trying to solve. However, there are few questions that I will try to answer with respe

This is very interesting. I love the approach to the problem that you are trying to solve. However, there are few questions that I will try to answer with respective to the product. Q. Will I pay to use your problem? A. Probably not, with the current version Q. What problems I see with the platform? A. I seriously don't know how you'd proceed forward with the platform. If it would only be used for creating static webpages then you'd end up creating a platform similar to Wix or other such website generation platforms. Please let me know what you think about the suggestion.

johndamaia 7y ago
Let me turn back some questions to you: 1. What's not enough in this current version for you to pay? What would make you be able to pay? 2. Do you have this problem recurrently? i.e. going from design to code.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  It would be interesting to see the quality of the code. Way back in the 90s Macromedia had a product called Fireworks, which Adobe subsequently bought (along with Flash, Dreamweaver etc.). It could turn designs into HTML+CSS but the code was horrible and no-one used it professionally. I know we are decades past that, and the machine learning algos may do a better job but without seeing some code examples it has limited appeal to me. I don't really know the kind of person that has to turn around so many websites that the boilerplating exercise is a big enough problem to pay to solve. I can see the appeal to people who have no experience building websites and a company like Wix might be interested in the tech. But professionals who need a monthly subscription has to be a tiny niche. Impressive all the same though, what you have learned in doing this will lead to other great things I am sure.
  - johndamaia 7y ago
    Thanks so much for your words. Happy to share our demo code, would love your feedback. If you think it makes sense, drop me a line at john [@] zecoda.com
    - halostatue 7y ago
      It might be easier, since this is targeted at developers, to make a GitHub repo with both the Sketch files and the generated code so that we can determine whether this is something that we’d benefit from. From my perspective, one of the difficulties I’d have is that we already have a pretty extensive Vue application, but we _still_ have problems with translating updates in place. So, we’d want to be able to compare one of the screens we have with one of the screens generated (and our designers tend to create multiple Sketches to illustrate different state possibilities). The next question would be how updates might be flagged to minimize code churn after initial generation.
derangedHorse 7y ago
Wix still requires work to encode designs into html pages with interactivity. The use of this tool is to jump straight from designs to those initial pages with essentially no work. It also will be a lot more versatile with respect to the type of designs it accepts and can generate. Even if you wouldn't pay for this I know a lot of high-revenue generating businesses that would. The time savings afforded by this tool (if it works) would be incredible.

johndamaia 7y ago

Let me turn back some questions to you: 1. What's not enough in this current version for you to pay? What would make you be able to pay? 2. Do you have this problem recurrently? i.e. going from design to code.

monkeynotes 7y ago
It would be interesting to see the quality of the code. Way back in the 90s Macromedia had a product called Fireworks, which Adobe subsequently bought (along with Flash, Dreamweaver etc.). It could turn designs into HTML+CSS but the code was horrible and no-one used it professionally. I know we are decades past that, and the machine learning algos may do a better job but without seeing some code examples it has limited appeal to me. I don't really know the kind of person that has to turn around so many websites that the boilerplating exercise is a big enough problem to pay to solve. I can see the appeal to people who have no experience building websites and a company like Wix might be interested in the tech. But professionals who need a monthly subscription has to be a tiny niche. Impressive all the same though, what you have learned in doing this will lead to other great things I am sure.
- johndamaia 7y ago
  Thanks so much for your words. Happy to share our demo code, would love your feedback. If you think it makes sense, drop me a line at john [@] zecoda.com
  - halostatue 7y ago
    It might be easier, since this is targeted at developers, to make a GitHub repo with both the Sketch files and the generated code so that we can determine whether this is something that we’d benefit from. From my perspective, one of the difficulties I’d have is that we already have a pretty extensive Vue application, but we _still_ have problems with translating updates in place. So, we’d want to be able to compare one of the screens we have with one of the screens generated (and our designers tend to create multiple Sketches to illustrate different state possibilities). The next question would be how updates might be flagged to minimize code churn after initial generation.

derangedHorse 7y ago

Wix still requires work to encode designs into html pages with interactivity. The use of this tool is to jump straight from designs to those initial pages with essentially no work. It also will be a lot more versatile with respect to the type of designs it accepts and can generate. Even if you wouldn't pay for this I know a lot of high-revenue generating businesses that would. The time savings afforded by this tool (if it works) would be incredible.