It's a big enough market that the more variety of tools that exist, the better, as designers can find the tool that they like the best, instead of the bad old days where it was Photoshop or Fireworks, and they both were crap for web design.
What's interesting is to compare and contrast the difference between a tool like this on the desktop, and tools like mine that are web-based (see easel, divshot, webflow, probably 1 or 2 more that I'm forgetting, etc...)
Being on the desktop gives them a bit more power and control over the user interface, as well as super-easy importing of external assets.
Being web-based allows me to do neat things like have live-updating preview links, so you can immediately see how the design works or breaks on a bunch of screens at once. Also importing HTML content from any URL, for doing quick responsive redesigns. I still have some work to do on the output CSS being more optimized, but for prototyping and being wildly creative in a flexible web canvas, you can't beat it.
Can you elaborate more on this? Photoshop looks much more advanced than this app (there is no way we can compare them)
It's not meant or designed to produce HTML/CSS web designed and never claimed that.
I'm referring to the fact that Photoshop was created as a photo/bitmap editor, and has of course grown to be very advanced and full of features. That is in fact sometimes a defect, depending on your task. Of course photoshop doesn't produce HTML and CSS, but that hasn't stopped it from becoming the standard for designing things that are intended to be HTML and CSS in the end.
I've designed Edit Room to be very specific towards designing with words and content for the web. Therefore, the focus is on typography & layout, color & style, and flexible/responsive layout. Using the native formats of the web for your designs ensures you're building with real bricks, so to speak.
Safari 6.0.5 (8536.30.1) on OSX 10.8.4. With Chrome I only get a "sorry there was an error" message.
I agree there is a need, but I think that need is exaggerated, writing html / css is pretty easy, its not fun but its generally nothing compared to the overall work, half the time you still have to do it manually anyway since it has to fit into frameworks etc.
I want something that lets me focus on the design aspect, it should have nice snap to grid features, ability to inspect and edit css, but it should also have a vector drawing tools, image manipulations. The current set of design tools have terrible support for most common web functionality, photoshop doesnt even have rounded borders, illustrator / fireworks / sketch / pixelmator all almost entirely ignore things that are important for designing for the web. However web based editors almost all lack any graphical and vector capabilities whatsoever.
I started on this and gave up a while ago, http://upmock.com/ and wrote about it http://arandomurl.com/2012/10/15/upmock-is-dead.html. Currently the most promising so far has been SVG Edit, however it doesnt seem particularly active nor has there been a focus on producing web designs
Speak for yourself. As a code-savvy designer, who splits everyday designing on paper, in Photoshop/Illustrator and in the browser, I don’t think I can overstate how woefully our professional tools for web design have actually kept up with web design.
photoshop doesnt even have rounded borders
Sure it does—vector shapes + Stroke Layer Styles work great. Do you mean something else?
Every time somebody complains how Photoshop doesn't have rounded corners, they mean it doesn't have dynamic rounded corners. You can't change the roundedness in any remotely easy way after you draw the shape, and changing the dimensions of the shape distorts the corners.
They're just a huge pain to work with, when they need to be trivially easy for doing web design.
Any capabilities along those lines in a web app would probably be a bit more limited than desktop apps, but that doesn't mean that useful tools for vector and bitmap manipulation can't be made at all. However the case could be made to use desktop apps for what they're good for, and web layout apps can then reference files created with the desktop apps.
When tools break away from old ways of "doing things" you can end up with much more exciting stuff. I know that I fall into past behavior when pressed for time (which is every project ever) and if I had an easier way to experiment, I might try something different.
I'm hoping it has some idea of optimization though. He was dragging out individual icons for every social button and logo and whatever. It doesn't seem like sprite sheets are possible here but maybe? I don't imagine sass/less support here but that would be neat.
Finally, I'd love to see how they are building the app itself. Is this a Chrome embedded app?
It's not an easy problem to solve without human intelligence.
Something I did note was that the pre-used class names weren't auto-suggested; eg on the footer buttons. Sure that'll get fixed. Also perhaps value snapping to avoid values like "29.608938547486037%"?
Everything else looked pretty slick though.
Didn't see the GA code being added in the video. Also it seems like Typekit was integrated to get some of the typographical flexibility.
Generally though I really liked it; seems very promising.
For a specific example as to why, look no further than the first 4 minutes where the creator "imports all these assets we made". Made where?!
My design team doesn't work like that. No design team does. They don't "make one thing over and then plug it in over here". They make everything together in one program. Because it's impossible to jump between two different apps when you're exploring a creative concept. You don't think to yourself, "OK, I'll need this icon and this icon and maybe a background image with these precise filters applied and it'll have a sidebar so I'll need a texture for that..."
You open Photoshop, or Illustrator, or Pixelmator and you start trying things until something you've tried looks good.
While it'd be great to see design tools that actually took the intricacies of HTML structure and CSS into account, tools like Macaw (and all the others I've seen) all fall down for real work.
I'm definitely excited for this one.
Visually it looks awesome, but what it really comes down to is the quality of the code. Most WYSIWYG editors leave a lot to be desired.
Second, I am always wary of amazing tools with unknown pricepoints. I get that you're still early, but some semblance of cost structure would be great. Frankly, I don't know if you're going to charge $1500 or $5 a month or free. I just don't know, there's too many ways you could choose to market this, and that insecurity, that lack of knowledge makes me uncomfortable.
That being said, great job on the concept and I can't wait to see what it looks like when it goes live.
Did you see the code output at the end? It looked like pretty solid HTML and CSS to me. What was particularly interesting was the adhereance to OOCSS principles in the styles, but that could just be the result of good practices with the user.
For a real demonstration why not try something more "real-world" and see how that turns out.
Let's see if it really works before we worry too much about price.
I personally spend $50/month on Adobe creative tools, and would gladly pay for better tools.
If you say it is amazing, he will probably charge $1500.
I guess the idea of a demo is to gauge interest, which will ultimately help in deciding price, among other things.
Regardless, it'd be nice to not have to write markup and css, to me a boring process; a product like this is long overdue. My question is how it fits in with workflow. Who owns this in a group setting; the designer? The front end dev? Do I have to design a page in photoshop before I try to build it in this (in the presentation, the graphics were all ready to go and layout, but it's never like that in real life). It just seems weird to have to go through the process of designing a page, and then designing it again.
If you have something like this....why use Bootstrap?
Can't wait for you to release it.
I also hope these new tools allow us to output templated html and css -- there's nothing clunkier than dropping html into a rails project (I know that webflow will be able to output jade templates).
Wow, fantastic job, the smart and pretty CSS/HTML output is the icing on the cake.
It states in the video this is a native app, but written with HTML/CSS. Would be interested to know if this was written in node-webkit (like Light Table), or if not, what?
It's desktop, so unlikely to have a monthly model.