7 ms·
> When you say "if their site is not set up in just the right way to fit weweb", do you mean that it feels like the editor won't allow you to build custom layou
by tobr 6y ago
> When you say "if their site is not set up in just the right way to fit weweb", do you mean that it feels like the editor won't allow you to build custom layouts that fit with any design?
I find it a little hard to put this succinctly, but basically as a dev I get a little nervous seeing all the features in the UI. In my experience any complex editor like that has to be designed around a bunch of assumptions about what kind of site you’re editing, and almost every slightly complex real world site will have aspects that break those assumptions. It could something subtle, like confusion around terminology (imagine being a non-technical editor for a book binding website, and seeing terminology about “bindings”), or features that look like they should do something but for whatever reason don’t have any effect on the components in use. The more complex the editor is, the more likely that certain things will cause confusion when they meet the real world.
- raphael-gold 6y agothese are definitely real life example we experience every day. It is hard to draw the line between simplicity and customisability. For this our biggest inspiration is Figma. It's amazing to see non-designers drawing things in Figma without getting too many frustration together with designers doing complex and very precise designs & design systems without feeling limited. Their interface feels easy to start with but can take you very far if you need customization and scalability. We are far from what they achieve, but that's where we'd love the end up. :D