Create JavaScript, CSS Interactions With Zero Lines of Code
interactions.webflow.com
interactions.webflow.com
That said, I disagree with the implication that Webflow, and similar products, solve the problems of code, e.g., the phrase "Do xyz without writing a line of code". Knowledge of code does constrain non-developers, but in the end, that is not the hard part. To use a quick example: the mechanics of baking responsiveness into a new site from scratch is significantly easier than the conceptual process of "What information and features should be prominent, or excised, in the mobile view of our website?"...and in my opinion, that latter problem is something that people can get into without knowing how to write code.
So despite the technical strength of the Webflow product, I don't think that it makes things easier in the end. Instead of "code", a newbie has to learn a whole new interface, a whole new set of iconography/terms (used for buttons, subheads, etc.), and last but not least, a whole new set of quirks inherent to the Webflow program. And when they become experts at this, they have spent 50-90% of their cognitive ability mastering Webflow, and the remainder understanding the creative and technical process of web development.
At some point, isn't it just better to learn some code? Not 10 years worth, but something in between that and "0 lines of code". I've used Webflow, and I'll repeat again, it is an excellent web product in execution and design...but the problem it attempts to tackle is just too big, and the abstractions it offers may ended up hindering creators in the medium-to-long run.
I love what Bret Victor says about this in his Magic Ink paper [1]. Replace "information software" with "web applications" as you read it:
"I suggest that the design of information software should be approached initially and primarily as a graphic design project. The foremost concern should be appearance—what and how information is presented. The designer should ask: What is relevant information? What questions will the viewer ask? What situations will she want to compare? What decision is she trying to make? How can the data be presented most effectively? How can the visual vocabulary and techniques of graphic design be employed to direct the user’s eyes to the solution? The designer must start by considering what the software looks like, because the user is using it to learn, and she learns by looking at it."
The act of creating a solution IS the hard part, not tweaking CSS properties or knowing how to integrate Bootstrap components just right. All those things should just get out of the way and let creatives do the important work, without bogging down in the implementation details.
In case you're interested, I wrote a bit more about this on our blog a while ago: http://blog.webflow.com/designers-will-rule-the-web
A better tagline for the web interactions site would be: "Don't code website interactions; design them."
again, no knock on the site, it looks like it's really well done, i'm just not sure that a series of complex controls solves the problem of web development any better than just learning how to code yourself.
It boils down to investment and return. If designers can build responsive sites faster and easier with great code output (see source code) using a WYSIWYG, then it makes more sense to invest in that versus learning how to write the same code. Front end devs use frameworks like Bootstrap and Foundation to cut development time. Webflow serves the same purpose, but all the framework components are made visual.
This visual abstraction makes it more accessible for more people just like these frameworks made web dev easier. There is always the possibility of people using Webflow and creating poorly-coded websites, but anyone trying to code can do the same.
Again, I'm sure your intent with this product is not "build every website out there," but I am concerned by those with a little knowledge and ambition using your site as the easy way out for making a website rather than taking the time to actually learn how to do all those things for themselves.
I imagine this tool is perfect for creating a beautiful landing page or similar. Obviously one isn't going to try and use it to build anything enterprise grade.
But there lots of jQuery plugins or css frameworks out there but they largely seem to have active user bases.
The audience here is people that feels comfortable doing stuff tweaking parameters on a dialog box, they don't care if the dialog box is actually a lazy evaluated reactive continuation or whatever as long as it does the job.
An abstraction layer for web technology is as relevant, revolutionary and useful as an abstraction layer for the CPU was on its time (in fact the most succesful companies did exactly this).
I am the developer of HiveMind (crudzilla.com), it is a web app platform designed with the aim of lowering technical barrier in mind.
My approach to the design of the product is to create something that people with moderate programming and web development skills can use to build high quality web apps. That means for instance being able to integrate the work of a more sophisticated developer with the ease of drag-n-drop and "fill in the blank" type workflows. But ultimately the end users still needs to know how to code.
The allure of eliminating the need for coding is one that has been around for a long time and continues to be attractive to businesses but it is a misguided approach that doesn't work.
I worked for an employer that peddles a product that claims to require no coding, instead you end up filling out forms until your fingers hurt because you are essentially coding in a convoluted manner.
Yes, these sorts of editors often create horrible leaky abstractions. Yes, these editors often confuse product folks into thinking that coding isn't necessary or important or hard. But that isn't its goal -- the goal is to make the common stuff easy to do for people writing / designing simple site content -- fades, positional, simple triggers. There is no reason to write code for this stuff.
If you don't believe me, imagine drawing something without showing the picture. Word documents without wysiwyg. Photo editing without Photoshop. In this video (http://vimeo.com/64895205) Bret Victor brilliantly shows what a powerful interactive editor can do. For the web, no amount of manual css typing can beat what a great editor could do. Whether this is that editor remains to be seen, but the idea of editors is a good one.
But with that said, I am not a paying customer. When I need to make a site then I just sign up for a free trial and export the code to continue the project. Their individual plan doesn't really make sense for me and I think it's too expensive.
Also for a person like me, it would be great if there was some sort of "explain" feature where Webflow would give me a peek at what's going on so i could slowly learn. For example: "This fade-in was achieved using the CSS3 fade animation with the following line of code: ...". I know that's a niche feature, but I think there are a lot of design-challenged coders out there who would like it.
The home page is missing a link to pricing. I couldn't find pricing until clicking through to the Features page.
Building a site on bootstrap (from source, ie integrating bootstrap's less files as dependencies in your webapp via grunt and bower) is defensible; becoming entirely dependent on the capabilities of something like webflow, imho, is not.
I suppose if you're a designer in a hurry to build a pretty, throwaway site (eg a microsite for an event) then this might be worth your while. But if you're building something for the enterprise, anything you or your team might want to maintain and extend, I think it represents an unacceptable level of knowledge debt, to rely on site-generating tools like this.
YMMV of course. My views are skewed towards the UI architecture needs of a multi-million-dollar global company.
/$.02
If these codeless "devs" get hired by someone to make their website and the customer wants certain things to work, the non-coding "developer" will be at the whim of the capabilities of the WYSIWYG tool they use, not their own coding capabilities.
I suppose as long as the codeless "dev" is upfront with their clients that they don't know code and are upfront that they have a limited offering, it's ethical. As long as the client knows that certain customizations may or may not be available to them and it also reflects the cost of the "development".
Don't get me wrong, I think WYSIWYG apps are great in principle, but in practice I think it's pretty limited on where they should be applied.
That said, I'm not sure where your premise that WYSIWYG editors are necessarily less powerful than code actually comes from.
Works fine on Chrome and Safari
But frankly I like it better without them. They add no value to the page. When Bret Victor talks about "directing the user's eyes to the solution," [1] I believe he's assuming an information-dense display, which this is not. The page is designed (as many are now) so that only one thing is on the screen at a time. I already know how to look at the thing I'm scrolling to — that's why I'm scrolling. This eye candy is kind of nauseating and I'm happy to think it's a fad.
This is a critique of the OP, not of Webflow, which I'm sure can be put to good use.
> TypeError: F.timing is undefined
What does this offer over something like Wix or Weebly?
That makes me question if I even want to take it for a spin.
- Google Web Designer is free to use, this costs money structurally.
- This offers integrated hosting, Google Web Designer does not. So, for creative types, its easier to share a design and deploy it. (although it seems export is available)
- Google Web Designer seems focused on (fixed-size) ads (for mobile), where this is focused on creating responsive animated websites.
As someone who has many years of experience coding animations by hand in css and a little js, sometimes a tool would be more useful. Its too easy to get lost in the minutiae of the code and lose sight of the visual impact you're going for.
For some people, a tool like this is entirely worth the cost.
I guess in my mind if you are that against coding maybe you should consider just sticking with design or biz development, etc? Not being mean but seriously, stick to what you are good at, right?
The same thing happened with assemblers, compilers, etc, so it's nothing new - abstraction marches on.
However, it's pretty clear that most of the people in the world who want to create/share content on the web are NOT interested in learning how to code at all, right? I mean, that's a big part of the reason why blogging platforms, and many other user-generated content sites are so huge (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. etc.).
Yeah, people could just stick with what they know if they don't want to code -- but then there would still be huge barriers between having an idea that you want to create and get out there, and actually having the ability to make it real.
For example, this Webflow Interactions site was entirely created by someone who isn't a coder (I know, I work with him). How long would it have taken him to learn all of the code he would have needed to know to create it all from scratch? Or how much would he have needed to pay a developer to build it for him? And how long would that back and forth taken to get it all right?
For a lot of people, those types barriers are insurmountable (they don't have the time/skill to learn themselves, or the money to pay someone else). So should their ideas just not ever have the chance to see the light of day?
If everyone who ever had a great idea could code it themselves that would be awesome. I just don't think it's feasible -- and tools like Webflow can bring a lot more people a lot closer.
Drink your kool aid all you want, coding will never be replaced by a solution like this. It will simply allow someone to get closer to what they want before they grow frustrated by unforeseen limitations they will eventually run into; then they need to hire a real coder to fix everything, and likely replace it all, costing them more money and worse lost time.
Tell that to all the Wordpress based projects out there or Dev Frameworks.
Some users just need an outlet to express fairly static data in engaging ways and don't need the overhead of learning a CRUD/REST stack in their way.
There will always be a need for experts who know who computer science actually works but harder things will continue to be further simplified.