2 ms·
I don't know if I agree. I recently tried Webflow and was not so impressed. It's basically a UI on top of CSS. Which is OK for developers, but there is still to
by cloogshicer 6y ago
I don't know if I agree. I recently tried Webflow and was not so impressed. It's basically a UI on top of CSS. Which is OK for developers, but there is still too much complexity and too many footguns for non-technical users.
For example, take position: sticky. This CSS property is basically one-to-one mapped to a dropdown in Webflow. So I thought it would just work. But alas, just like the CSS pendant, it only works if the parent element has the correct properties. Also it only works in browsers that support it, and isn't polyfilled automatically.
Maybe what I'm asking for is technically not feasible, but then the UI should disable the option in such cases and not hide this in a support page imho.
I think a truly powerful website builder would have to leave the CSS paradigms behind and invent something new.
- terpimost 6y agoTilda Publishing is the perfect balance
- migueloller 6y agoI agree 100%. It can’t just be a UI on too of CSS. At that point just write the HTML and CSS...
- pembrook 6y agoTo me that's the best part, they haven't abstracted away HTML/CSS, so you have control over everything like you would if you built a site from scratch. Creating HTML/CSS through a realtime updated UI is just so much faster and the better experience IMO. Its a great example of "Inventing on Principle," re: this great Bret Victor talk https://vimeo.com/36579366 https://vimeo.com/36579366 That said, coding from scratch, while slower than using Webflow, isn't the real pain point for me. But I can see how someone less technical might see that as the real value. The real hassle in building static sites from scratch is the nightmare of NPM, git, bad static site generator defaults, complicated headless CMSs configurations and fragile dependencies.