Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebFlow

webflow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: WebFlow

#31

Post by callmevlad »

ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #27

If the Webflow website was built and designed using only Webflow, then I would be impressed.

(Co-founder here...)

The Webflow.com website was mostly designed in Webflow, but we had some limitations at the time that required us to hand-code things. A new version is in the works that is completely created in Webflow, so it's only a matter of time :)

Pretty much all of our other sites (e.g. [1][2]) are already built/hosted/managed on Webflow.

[1] http://tutorials.webflow.com/ [2] http://jobs.webflow.com

Re: WebFlow

#32

Post by callmevlad »

waxin wrote: post #6
cabalamat wrote: post #5

So was the webflow website generated in webflow?

i think not - you can only go/do basic stuff with sites like this, at the end of the day some level of coding will be required

(Co-founder of Webflow here...)

Would you say these are basic? (All created with Webflow.)

http://artemis.com/ http://cmplain.com/ http://www.zombi.nl/ http://zombidemos.webflow.com/ https://webflow.com/gallery

Re: WebFlow

#33

Post by kpapke »

josephpmay wrote: post #10

I love Webflow, and have used it for multiple projects, but I personally feel like it's way too expensive. As a student, I could literarily get the entire adobe creative suite for cheaper than the Webflow plan I would need would cost. And, as I only create a few static web pages a year, there's no way I can justify paying for Webflow.

I also use webflow but it definitely seems geared toward small agencies. The individual pricing plan is too much. Again I love the tool and would gladly pay for if the individual plan's cost went down.

Re: WebFlow

#34

Post by woah »

Silhouette wrote: post #20
jgroome wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive. "Beautiful" and "awesome", however, I could do without seeing everywhere for a few months. Especially "awesome".

"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive. But unfortunately the original meaning of "responsive" as Marcotte coined the term has been diluted by people who apply the term to any site that uses media queries to change its layout on a mobile device. There is more to responsive web design than media queries, and there are plenty of ways to use media queries to adapt a site to different…

Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion. If a layout uses media queries to 'respond' to different screen sizes, it is by definition 'responsive'. Anything past that starts to be an aesthetic/no true scotsman type of argument.

Re: WebFlow

#35

Post by woah »

allsystemsgo wrote: post #25

I've always wondered how to make the "scrolling" type responsive websites. Does bootstrap or weebly make that easy? I'm an iOS dev and I've literally never touched web development.

For images that just stay fixed, background-attachment: fixed does the job nicely. For things like parallax, stuff popping into view, etc, you basically write a function that gets called on scroll events and does what you need. It usually ends up being kind of hacky, with magical equations that take the value from .scrollTop() (jquery) as an input. It's best not to overthink these things.

Bootstrap has an affix function which will help you make nav bars that stick to the top of the page. There are many other 'scrolling frameworks' out there, but I've found them to be a waste of time, myself.

Re: WebFlow

#36

Post by emilioolivares »

It's too expensive for personal use, I would like to see a pay as you go plan such a flat fee by website. Maybe Pre pay 3, 6, 12 months or any other options to make it a no brainer.

The product itself is very very cool. I'm amazed by what is technically possible in modern web browsers.

Re: WebFlow

#38

Post by wmeredith »

rplnt wrote: post #18
jgroome wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive. "Beautiful" and "awesome", however, I could do without seeing everywhere for a few months. Especially "awesome".

But it's not always a necessity to be responsive.

Nor does it imply quality in and of itself.

>>"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.

"Car" is pretty factual. There's all kinds of cars...

Re: WebFlow

#39

Post by derefr »

callmevlad wrote: post #31
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #27

If the Webflow website was built and designed using only Webflow, then I would be impressed.

(Co-founder here...) The Webflow.com website was mostly designed in Webflow, but we had some limitations at the time that required us to hand-code things. A new version is in the works that is completely created in Webflow, so it's only a matter of time :) Pretty much all of our other sites (e.g. [1][2]) are already built/hosted/managed on Webflow. [1] http://tutorials.webflow.com/ [2] http://jobs.webflow.com

What were/are the limitations? Are they things that have since been fixed in the publically-available version of Webflow, or will users run into them?

Re: WebFlow

#40

Post by derefr »

wmeredith wrote: post #38
rplnt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not always a necessity to be responsive.

Nor does it imply quality in and of itself. >>"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive. "Car" is pretty factual. There's all kinds of cars...

Sure, but if you want to drive on the road, it's still at least a bit helpful to know that the framework is not, in fact, a boat. (I wonder if someone could give a Devil's Advocate position on the advantages of a non-responsive framework...)
Post reply on HN