4 ms·

My impression was that the major argument against static site generators is the unfriendly UX for non-technical contributors to the site, and with LLMs that pro

My impression was that the major argument against static site generators is the unfriendly UX for non-technical contributors to the site, and with LLMs that problem is completely solved.

fg137 24d ago
I don't know how it's "completely solved" unless you can point me to an existing, complete solution. Providing a nice backend with a WYSIWYG editor and access control as well as varying level of customization is not a trivial problem for anyone, technical or non technical, and you can easily mess it up.
- darylteo 24d ago
  You only need a WYSIWYG if you're the one doing the actual writing. /s
- reverius42 23d ago
  You don't need a backend. You don't even need a static site generator. Just sit a non-technical person in front of Claude Code and tell them to tell the computer what they want (including what the content should say). For something as simple as a static site (that the user can themselves look at and read) there's nothing to mess up -- if something looks out of place, a non-technical user can just tell the computer that and it will fix it. "Computer, add a page to the blog with this content: <pasted text>" -- "Computer, the banner looks weird on phones but not on desktop, please fix it." My wife (no CS background, no programming experience, schooling in music and law) is about to submit her first several apps to the App Store. I don't think she has had to even look at a single line of code. Yes, they work.
  - fg137 23d ago
    You need to get out of your bubble. That's all I can say.
    - reverius42 21d ago
      I ... need to get out of my evidence-based bubble in which I'm observing real non-technical users in the real world? This is not a discourse bubble. I'm not getting my talking points from other people. I'm drawing conclusions based on what capabilities I've observed the AI giving to non-technical users.

My impression was that the major argument against static site generators is the unfriendly UX for non-technical contributors to the site, and with LLMs that problem is completely solved.

fg137 24d ago

I don't know how it's "completely solved" unless you can point me to an existing, complete solution. Providing a nice backend with a WYSIWYG editor and access control as well as varying level of customization is not a trivial problem for anyone, technical or non technical, and you can easily mess it up.

darylteo 24d ago
You only need a WYSIWYG if you're the one doing the actual writing. /s
reverius42 23d ago
You don't need a backend. You don't even need a static site generator. Just sit a non-technical person in front of Claude Code and tell them to tell the computer what they want (including what the content should say). For something as simple as a static site (that the user can themselves look at and read) there's nothing to mess up -- if something looks out of place, a non-technical user can just tell the computer that and it will fix it. "Computer, add a page to the blog with this content: <pasted text>" -- "Computer, the banner looks weird on phones but not on desktop, please fix it." My wife (no CS background, no programming experience, schooling in music and law) is about to submit her first several apps to the App Store. I don't think she has had to even look at a single line of code. Yes, they work.
- fg137 23d ago
  You need to get out of your bubble. That's all I can say.
  - reverius42 21d ago
    I ... need to get out of my evidence-based bubble in which I'm observing real non-technical users in the real world? This is not a discourse bubble. I'm not getting my talking points from other people. I'm drawing conclusions based on what capabilities I've observed the AI giving to non-technical users.