This is a disaster for so many reasons.
Fixed sizing, absolute positioned everything, inlined styles, inaccessible, without hover or even focus states, using image backgrounds for divs with border radius (seriously?! There are 82 image files on the Engineering page alone), heavy page weight for very little going on visually, etc...
Forget two days in Sketch; your site could have been designed in the browser to best practice in a day.
This may be okay for some prototypes but is nowhere near acceptable for a production website.
Oh god how I hate generated code. Here is a small example https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utahtechjobs.io%2Fjobs&tab=desktop Also no hovers, image buttons etc.
Ultra simple project like this can be done in one day and hand coded ;)
It's definitely not perfect, but it's been pretty great to see my designs live and people using and interacting with what I designed in just a couple of hours. I think I fall in the target user space for this plugin. Those with better coding skills than I will probably see the plugin as not as useful, but for me it works.
It's funny — when I started doing web design, FrontPage, DreamWeaver and GoLive (remember GoLive??) were the most popular website editors because of their WYSIWYG interfaces. Everything is cyclical :)
It is interesting to see it come back to these WYSIWYG products. I think with this new plugin, Sketch is the design tool, the launch tool, and the content management system, too. At least for simple stuff.
The generated code here is awful. Absolutely positioned everything. That's not how you build a website.
IMO, these code generator plugins/software really need to focus on something else. It's not possible to generate code for a site of moderate complexity. This plugin is particularly useless as it can't even generate your site, which is about as basic as it can get.
I know you say it "works for you" But I bet it won't work well cross browser. Not good for users. It's impossible to make this site responsive and would be a nightmare to edit or maintain.
what a disaster. This is why designers that understand the medium they design for are so, so much better designers.
All the decorative Elements are images. This is wrong. Images that don't convey any semantic meaning should be done with CSS background-images, or maybe inline SVG/Canvas. But not an image.
None of the images have
altattributes. This is not being picky, alt attributes are required.
Just.. don't. This is dreamweaver all over again.
I think the big question tools like this need to answer is why you wouldn't just design this straight in the browser. And "because I don't know how to" is not a valid answer…
All though I'm not a big fan of websites that use
top: 655px; left: 450pxfor every div element, I still think it's a pretty cool thing that you can whip up a seemingly simple website in just two days.
This is exactly why I hate apps like this. DOM loading time was over 2,5 seconds, and overal loading time was 10 seconds! A local web develop should be able to recreate this in a day as well with much better respons time + responsive
Just use Webflow ;)
All the criticism ignores one excellent point. Dan built it without having to touch code, and he used one tool. I can definitely see this being an excellent tool for quick prototyping. Instead of using InVision or Marvel just do this, and deploy it online where you can link it to anyone. I do 100% agree with the criticism on the quality of the code. But this is just another tool.
I do have to say there is one valid reason for this: prototyping, as people have mentioned. However, why use web code for a prototype that has no hope of being production ready? May as well build in a different medium.
This is for sure not capable of production use. It would be of far better use for you to learn how to build this by hand. I can assure you it won't take you long to learn, this could be built in 3-4 hours max.
I see you mention you would bring in developers to create a database driven version, This would be very hard to create from a database because instead of just looping out data using JS, PHP etc you would have to loop out data, and then calculate all the position pixels. IMO if a developer saw this they would just create it from scratch again, it would be quicker and less of a headache.
I don't mean to offend. But I strongly believe tools like this shouldn't exist. It's a step backward, not forward.
Thank you for the feedback everyone.
Most of the concerns risen here can and will be solved in the next few days:
- PNGs will be compressed.
- HTML and CSS will be minimized.
- Cache headers will be added to assets.
- Shaped layers will export as SVGs.
alttags will be added to img tags.
The good thing is that once these optimizations will take place, all of the websites on the Launchpad platform will automatically benefit.
We have many things we can optimize and we're diligently going through them.
Does it integrate data from a database or how did you add/maintain the job posts?
I do it all in Sketch. For me, it's a great prototyping tool. I've already got some great user feedback from people using it. I can make the changes and then push it live in minutes. Then get more feedback and do it all over. This would take a long time with developers. Once I get it to a validated state, I'll bring in the developers and create a working database to keep the site updated.