I agree. In some ways, tools like Macaw do promote laziness. You could compare it to the slicing tool in Photoshop that web designers used to use in the late 90s.<p>However, both design and frontend development are becoming more specialized roles--especially for large web applications. A designer may be proficient in CSS/HTML but it may not be her forte. She may spend most of her time in design software creating wireframes and mockups and a smaller amount of time actually producing CSS/HTML. Furthermore, some large web applications are so complex (in terms of javascript and ajax) that production HTML/CSS is only written by frontend developers.<p>Therefore, a tool like Macaw is brilliant for a designer who wants to quickly produce actual working prototypes to show interaction, responsiveness, and animations to developers. Simply delivering static screens to developers is not enough anymore.<p>And, I'm not sure that designing all in the browser is the best approach, especially if you're working on a complex web application. Designing in some design software allows you to brainstorm and iterate through many different design ideas before settling on something.<p>Furthermore, Macaw doesn't take away your job of writing CSS code. You still have to organize DOM elements and set class names.<p>PS Macaw didn't pay me to write this. I just think their product is very compelling for rapid prototyping.