My issue with having these kind of robust drag and drop html editors isn't so much with the tech as it is the audience it is appealing to. As a developer, unless this thing outputs compliant XHTML/CSS, it's much less useful to me outside of anything like putting up a quick and dirty landing page. Just look at muse.<p>Yes, templates can look generic and such but the whole point of that is to control the design so that you end up with something that looks decent to the average person. If you want something more custom, learn to code.<p>More often then not, when you put "robust" tools into the hands of people who don't know what to do, what you end up with is just ugly. Giving the user more choice is sometimes detrimental if they don't know what to do with it.<p>I think these tools are cool, but I'd like to see more development on editors that teach core concepts like spacing/readability and selecting complimentary colors and guide people through process rather than providing every type of granular control.
I was a UI designer at Homestead (and later Intuit) where we've had a drag-and-drop website editor for years. The problem we we eventually faced was not helping non-developers "develop" a website, but helping non-developers "design" a website. A website that looked professional (we catered to small businesses), readable (yellow text on red backgrounds is incredible difficult to read), and contained the information their users are looking for (like a phone number). Some users will get it and create great looking websites. Most will not, and that's where templates become really helpful, if not necessary.<p>There's an interesting irony you might face. Helping non-developers create and publish a website is an incredibly delightful experience for them. It's easy to forget the time years ago when we wrote our first line of code and it worked. It's incredibly satisfying and empowering. It's a great feeling to instill in your users. But that doesn't help them design better pages. In fact, it sometimes works against it. They'll add whacky text, images, and background colors because it's fun to play and create. The more power they have, the more they'll take advantage of it. For one-off personal web pages it won't be a big deal. But for creating serious websites, it might become a problem.<p>Good luck though! It's great seeing others innovating in this space!
Scroll Kit is a polished, advanced tool to put creative tools in the hands of lay people. There's room for that in the marketplace. (Weebly etc. are already doing it, but still, the beta is slick and a job well done.)<p>But man, it reminds me of Apple's Pages, which my mother used in December to create THE WORLD'S UGLIEST HOLIDAY NEWSLETTER. When I got it, I was actually embarrassed, wondering what hundreds of other people were thinking when they got it (look at this - has P. been drinking?). I would much, much rather she asked me for some help and allowed me to guide her to a) a better result and b) a rudimentary understanding of how the tool she's using works.<p>tl;dr - startups shouldn't settle for making something possible for their users - they should make it their mission to help their users become _awesome_ at something.
> The difference between a div class and a div id ... [is] the kind of brutal lessons that first timers slog through and few master (and that’s the simple stuff).<p>Really? Just think of the class as a surname and the id as a social security number - many people can have the same surname, and those that have the same one have something in common. Only one person can have a given SSN.<p>What's hard about it? Okay, one is denoted by '.' and the other by '#', but I'm not sure how something like <i>that</i> gets more complicated.<p>CSS and Javascript can be a pain overall, but in the end, if you need to know much more than the above, you should really just be learning to use the entire toolbox, not picking and choosing the tools that you think you want (which are oftentimes not the ones you really need).