Live data from Hacker News

Google Web Designer (2013)

google.com

21–30 of 153 posts

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#21
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

Namo Webeditor was popular along with many tools, only backend services need lot of effort to maintain. Thee is one professional web design editor who patented it.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#22
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

My thinking is that they were replaced by dynamic sites based on PHP like WordPress, which initially people were doing template conversions for but eventually they switched to using themes... then we have had a bit of a redux with static site generators, but those are all hobbyist efforts. Dreamweaver still exists, it's just that no one makes those sorts of sites on Dreamweaver any more. There is no market for it.

All the developers that might do static frontends code by hand or use a library like Bootstrap or a theme like a WordPress theme. So there is not really much room for a tool like Dreamweaver in the landscape of web design. It's all about modifying existing things to make them fit the problem.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#23
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

There is https://pinegrow.com/ & to some extent Adobe Muse .... but I agree with the sentiment of there not being more options of WYSIWYG editors to choose from.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#24
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

They do exist in different forms. If you're on the level that's just above making a Facebook page then you might go with Squarespace or Wix which have WYSIWYG editors. Surprisingly, Dreamweaver is still a product that is updated(?) and used by many.

When it comes to the high-end, there are Mac apps such as Hype and Sparkle which are used especially for developers who want to create animated websites.

It's also the case that creating a webpage isn't the most important thing anymore. Many businesses only exist on Etsy and Facebook. The time when knowing what html is and knowing how Dreamweaver works meant you could make a living off of anyone who wanted to be "on the Internet" is kinda over.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#25
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

In my limited experience the market asking for and building sites on dreamweaver has completely shifted to squarespace, wix, etc.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#26
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

The underlying JS and HTML5 frameworks change too quickly for that to work. Companies that tried have presumably lost their shirts. But I'd say that's a good thing in that now web development is a "fill the area under the demand curve" type of undertaking. You can spend between $10^1 and $10^7 on a web site.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#27
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

A bunch of reasons, including lack of market, complexity of today's web.

They aren't entirely gone though, this was posted to HN a while ago: https://preview.webflow.com/preview/flexbox-game?preview=d1a... It's a game in their editor that teaches you flexbox.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#28
post #17

Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? I remember tools like dreamweaver/frontpage existed a long time ago, but don't hear about them anymore. Is it something that's too hard to make or is it just that the market doesn't exist ?

> Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ?

we don't. webflow[0] is the best I've seen. there's an OSS clone called grapejs[1], but it's still very alpha. one reason we don't see greater adoption is that WYSIWYG editors for the web occupy a sort of middle ground between template-based hosts like squarespace, weebly, etc, and opinionated low-barrier-to-entry frameworks like bootstrap. I think there's some market, especially for prototyping, one-off marketing pages, and people who don't already have a preferred design workflow, but I don't think WYSIWYG will return in a large way until these editors begin doing "real" front-end lifting -- i.e., "drag and drop this react/vue/whatever component within a grid, without having to know what react/vue/whatever is." the appeal of dreamweaver, frontpage, and all of those editors in the 90s was that not everyone and their mother was a coder, but everyone and their mother did want to be on the internet, and there were none of the aforementioned saas or framework solutions to rely on. in 2016, there's no lack of coders and tooling, so if you don't want to write your own code, you may as well just spend the $10 for a shop overseas to turn your static layout into a responsive webpage overnight.

0. https://webflow.com/

1. http://grapesjs.com/

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#29
I've been using this tool since a year now to quickly build HTML5 banners for DoubleClick. 1- the software was way too buggy than it is now, yet, it still is, and updates aren't that frequent. 2- all objects are positioned absolute, even though you can choose to create a responsive banner. 3- for me, it's perfect for ads, and handles animations pretty well (it uses CSS animations) 4- you can always access the generated code and modify it once you understand how it works. 5- I would never use it to create anything other than ads. 6- the UI sucks, especially when the biggest part of the process is adding assets, modifying their properties or settings their CSS, and you constantly have to resize the accordion drawers.

Re: Google Web Designer (2013)

#30

I just checked out the included templates. At least the first 20-30 are all ad templates, one of which is a full-screen mobile interstitial! That's the same element that just got an SEO finger wag from the Google Webmaster Central Blog[0]. _Just_ as the list of templates started getting interesting with some Youtube slider-thing integration, it came to an end. So yeah, this seems to be aimed at folks who need to buil…

> That's the same element that just got an SEO finger wag

They are not going to wag themselves, so it only makes sense to include Google's ad template into Google's editor for creating Google Ads :)

(I guess half of this comment that's not a joke is it looks like internal tool gone public for mostly PR opportunity.)

Post reply on HN