wish there was a zoom feature.
It's in the to-do list. See forum for details.
I saw that, glad they're gonna patch. Every designer zooms in/out to different perspectives of what they're doing. I'm actually perplexed as to why they left it out. Probably won't fiddle with it too much until the next update comes out.
My first reaction as well. I wasn't aware of how many times I use cmd+/- in PS/Sketch.
Macaw looks so promising, but it's buggy to the point of being unusable for me. Containers will suddenly take up an entire height or the grids will all light up one color or another and stay that way, etc. Looking forward to it getting on more solid footing.
Yup - i'm experiencing the same thing. funnily enough, when I publish - it looks more like I expected. I also find that working with breakpoint really breaks the rendering of the editor too. Containers will move, and items will lose their position. Shame. If they iron these out - it's a great prototyping / proofing app.
I've had a great time using the beta version. Made a tutorial on getting started by making a one-page landing site: https://medium.com/p/aeb72baf1755
I do not see the trial they're referring to at all? Lol?
EDIT: Okay there it is, guess I should have cleared my cache.
Waiting for email. Let's see how it works on windows :)
Downloaded that trial, looks cool and that code output is pretty good, nevertheless I wouldn't play over 150$ for this.
Are there other apps similar to Macaw?
Checkout Webflow.com (I'm one of the co-founders and designers). A lot of people compare Webflow to Macaw, but the approach each takes is different. Macaw wants to be the tool designers use to show their website's intent to the developer - kinda like handing off a Photoshop file but with more native responsive website interaction. Webflow wants to be the tool designers use to build their whole website from start to production without relying on a developer. Macaw generates layout code for while Webflow lets you decide what kind of CSS is best to create your responsive layout. Try them both!
In Macaw windows, open an .mcw file that was saved in Mac, it shows "There was an error reading the project file". Compatibility error?
Nice 1.0 version! Good starter point.
Could there be a lower price for first-trial/beta users.
As said here: would be nice to trigger a preview mode inside editor without having to publish.
Here, Tuts provides a $30 disaccount coupon code: http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/tutorials/getting-to-know-macaws-tools--cms-20480
I agree it seems a bit expensive. 100-150 would be more in my range. I'll wait till they fix some more bugs before checking it out.
There's a discount of $30 when you use the coupon code "TUTS". Offer ends April 5th
...ya I saw that. I replied to the person above me who posted the exact same thing as you. Thanks....
Did you pull the trigger at $149?
No problem. Not yet. I'm going to give it some time to grow. I still haven't tried the trial out yet. Hopefully the price comes down or there are some codes in the future.
The thing is, it's not a subscription, so you only get 1.0 + patches... with this many bugs I think I'll wait till 2.0 before throwing 150$ after something that might not fit in my workflow. I guess though, that 1.0 users will get a discount for 2.0, but I'm not sure it's worth it
Paddle is stuck in "Pre-Order". I just want to download it already. Frustrating.
See my comment below
what is this paddle that everyone is talking about?
Better than anything I have tried so far. Btw. how do I add a new breaking point?
Edit: Nevermind. I found it.
arrg now that I tried it out, the price is now 179$....
Then wait for 2.0 and feel happy that you didn't buy something which is clearly still in beta. "Price is a flat fee and not a subscription. Price includes all updates to version 1 of Macaw."
seems like the email isn't working ;_;
Found mine in the spam folder.
Gah! Waiting on the email :(
Really psyched and/but/or pessimistic about this one. What are your thoughts?
Been waiting for this to see how well it actually does. Definitely interesting in seeing how this app works. Anyone playing with it already?
I've been using it since the Beta, and I think it's pretty amazing!
Would be nice to get some good feed back from more knowledgable developers for the code side. Does it stack up with Muse? Blow it out of the water?
feels complicated, will give a shot
I'd love to hear from anyone who sees a use for Macaw's code output.
Why do you think it will be useful? Are you hoping to design and launch your site without advanced coding knowledge? Or are you hoping it will improve the relationship between you (designer) and your front-end devs?
Are there any front-end devs who see value in Macaw's automated code generation?
Hope I come across right. I can't see any value in it whatsoever. I'd like to understand the hype a bit better.
It's valuable because manually writing code should be a thing of the past – this is a step in the right direction.
It's valuable because manually writing code should be a thing of the past
Not sure I agree with that. However, I think this tool would be a powerful app to have for a designer that could bridge the gap to the front-end dev that is lacking coding experience. Or be able to prototype designs quickly without having to know how to code that well. It would be perfect for me to prototype fast and show proof of design in the browser with limited coding knowledge. I'm waiting till they get a little more stable and fix a few more bugs before I jump on board and try it out.
It would be great if it could provide all of that. I can't see how it provides any of it though?
How would it bridge the gap? If you don't understand code, looking at Macaw's output won't help you understand it any better?
Sure, you could view your designs in the browser but since Macaw doesn't have any prototyping tools (afaik?), you would just be viewing a static mock. What's the difference between viewing the design in Macaw and viewing it in the browser? How is there any benefit to that?
What do you mean by " show proof of design in the browser". Again, it's just a static mock. Who cares whether it's in a browser or a desktop app?
There is a big difference between viewing in the browser and photoshop files. Understanding code and understanding how to write it are two different things. I'm not sure you really know what a static mockup is or what macaw really does.
Code is becoming more automated over time and that's definitely the right direction, to a certain extent. However, codebases really benefit from abstracted, reusable modules, typically known as frameworks. Since Macaw doesn't integrate with any well-known frameworks, its code output is not reusable.
Using Macaw's code instead of a tried and tested framework would be a gigantic leap backwards.
I haven't used Macaw, but I don't know if I would agree with the framework aspect. I never use frameworks unless absolutely forced to, as I find them burdensome and adding a lot of extraneous code that I don't want or need most of the time. I've built both big and small sites by building my own "modular systems" (or at least styles that can be used across the site, as any developer worth their salt should).
I don't necessarily see a place for Macaw with the way it is right now, either, but I don't think the framework integration is a make or break feature.
I have the same thoughts about frameworks. Bootstrap and Foundation force you down a certain path. I use my own framework which is basically a collection of "modular systems", similar to InuitCSS or OOCSS.
My point was though, any large site should be built on a modular system. That goes for back-end and front-end code. Macaw's code output is not modular. Sure, it's split up into global classes but that's not modular enough.
So it's worth nothing to any site that uses Bootstrap, Foundation, InuitCSS, my framework or any other front-end framework out there, be it off-the-shelf or custom rolled. Macaw's code is standalone, an entity unto itself. That is not how web development works and it's definitely not how I'd like to see it going in the future.
Say you're a designer with no coding background wanting to make simple one page sites for clients. Is the code output really so bad that this isn't a valid use? I have to agree with others saying that a visual design solution to front end coding is an inevitable future. A common theme of posts and articles has been "Why am I drawing pictures of websites and then starting over in code." Some people are moving to design in the browser, some are introducing more and more tools to their repertoire to compensate and creating more and more convoluted workflows for themselves (maybe that's not a fair statement) - but an obvious answer is a photoshop-like software that's built purely for web design and at the very least creates the groundwork for the code. Maybe MACAW isn't that answer, but it's the closest thing out there currently - and I think that's something worth investing in.
Ok, I can see that use case having a lot of value. And you're right, for simpler client sites, the code is probably sufficient. That could be a huge market and one I thought they would pursue early on. They could empower business owners to design their own sites with no knowledge of code and no need to hire a designer.
But to take that route, it seems like they should automate launching too. Just choose a domain name, click "upload" and your site is live.
Getting into things like custom class names, Sass support etc. makes me think they're trying to replace manual coding even for hardcore developers.
That would be great, if it were possible. But if a site is built on Bootstrap, Foundation or any other front-end framework, Macaw's code is worth nothing.
The problem with self-service client sites (aka business owners doing it themselves) is that those markets are thoroughly covered by online tools - see squarespace, wix, weebly, etc.
For a small shop going after the pro market should be much more manageable - you can put together proper web comps and then use the code or not depending on your needs...
Regarding framework integration - I think part of the philosophy of this type of tools (at least for me personally) is that they should replace the need to use something like bootstrap or off-the-shelf frameworks. You could argue this both ways, but it would be great to be able to generate SASS or other precompiler-type output from a visual design tool... (hint-hint)
I do think this is limited in being a desktop app. Much more interesting to leverage the types of things the web can give...
Check out some of the videos, particularly the one titled "Interace Design With Macaw": http://macaw.co/videos/
So it seems they're wedged somewhere in between design and development. I still can't see any use case for it.
No need to hire a designer.
How did you reach that conclusion? Macaw replaces basic front end work, not actual design.
I was just speaking hypothetically, saying that it might be an option to market to small business owners who don't want to hire a designer.
From what I've seen so far, Macaw replaces nothing.
I'm hoping it's a better way for me to give designs to front-end devs.
The automated code isn't an argument for me. The web-centric layout engine is.
Photoshop, Illustrator, Sketch or Fireworks documents are all absolutely positioned (everything with X and Y coordinates relative to the canvas). What I'm looking for is a way to communicate what the layout is, and how it behaves. In browsers.
I understand Macaw's code output might be marginally better than competitors, but for us it'll be thrown away one way or another. If its generated pages can provide a real-life reference to use during front-end development, though, I'm all in.
Macaw 1.0 should be Macaw 0.5 at most -- it's very underdeveloped and buggy. There is some nice breakpointing and everything looks pretty smart, but there is a lot of work to do functionality-wise before this would be usable for at least making wireframes.
Keep up the good work and maybe someday there would be some alternative for Illustrator/Photoshop.