Boooo… (Maybe that’s my issue with the web nowadays…sooo much code…! )
Boooo… (Maybe that’s my issue with the web nowadays…sooo much code…! )
My early (pre-responsive) sites were very “graphically oriented.” I put a lot of time into the designs and “uniqueness” of them. I sort of considered each site its own little “work of art.” (examples…
But when I look at them now, after a couple of years building responsive sites with Bootstrap, they feel (to me) kinda amateurish and over the top. Too much random skeuomorphism, but that’s what the web was like 10 years ago. Smaller 4:3 monitors were still common, mobile hadn’t caught on yet. It was still the “wild west.”
At first I thought we really lost something special with the big switch over to material/flat design and frameworks. Where was the “creativity?” But with the popularity of smart phones and their small screens, things simply had to become simplified. There needed to be a semblance of uniformity and consistency. I see the wisdom in it now.
Well! I like 'em!
The first one sways a little towards that 90’s web design that we know and love,
that "100% satisfaction* … symbol.
that put them into the land of *Get your snake oil here *
But yeah I like those.
they were classy for their time, the tanning one wears it better than the purple one,
but they are BOTH really good! individual and nicely/well done.
I’d be chuffed to come up with them right now as they DONT look like all the same template stuff which is knocking around
just my half a (none)Cents
oh.and this reminds me of something…
" The carrot went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak"
mmmm, cant quite put my…finger…on it!.
but I enjoyed reading the whole bit from here
And do you know what I like about these sites and the others here
The PROMINENCE of …Content!
Even with Skeumorphic resonance factors built it, its the CONTENT, which is so easy to see!
not HUGE JUMBOTRON (read *Pointless waste of CONTENT real estate) before the ENDLESSS Scrolling down until WOO HOO 3 Columns of buy the middle one promotions (yep, been guilty of that myself) and more damned scrolling through standard BOOTSTRAP esque blocks…just because… there were available >
And have been rammed with generic bumf.
I like your old sites. They have swagger. poise, (superflous 100% satisfaction symbols) and
Easily accesible content, that’s easy to view.
ah the 90’s!
Fun web design… shame about the hair do’s… and the music (well, it was better than the 80’s…mmm in fact the music was improving, we had the dance scene)
mmm I’ve definitley gone off piste
Indeed concerning your accessibility comment, once the internet was heading into everyones pocket many things had to change regardless. People just have a hard time accepting that certain uniformity (UI/UX) allow(ed)(s) the web to move forward, we would not be were we are today concerning mobile and e-commerce without it.
The internet sure was a whole lot more fun back then though, long before it became the mainstream business model and entry point for virtually every business across the planet.
Before everyone became mobile, social and busy going into debt as merchandise arrived on their doorsteps from the palm of their hand as they sat on their couch. Back in those days it was exciting as people fired up their trusty TCP/IP and Mosaic Netscape. They just sat and waited as the rest of some simple page downloaded and enjoyed the animated gifs across the top of the page. Those were some truly exciting times of the internet, years before Steve Jobs ever got his job back at Apple.
Back then times were tough, not only were we fighting HTML tables for layout, but coffee came in a tiny cup with no froth or flavors, ah the horror. The 24 hour global news cycle was thankfully absent and you just looked outside yourself for up to the minute weather reports, while you read an actual paper map to plan a road trip.
While people these days act as if they are forced to use the Apollo Guidance Computer verse the mobile phone in their pocket. Designers working in todays web are missing out on all the fun times of years past, while supposedly having it so tough compared to back then. I can’t see why its so hard for so many to be creative with todays web and tools? :—)
Back to the Rabbit and Squirrel (choose wisely between each varmint and be safe out there):
Or does anyone enjoy potatoes ?
^ (ha, ha) Fortunately some people are still having some fun out there on the www and partying like its 1999, until the party was over and everyone had to rethink, regroup and worry about web standards and accessibility. Long before they could make their first duck face and share it with their newly found thousands of virtual friends. :—)
I am sure this new “Web Designer app by Pinegrow” will amply help people reach the web, before the next bubble occurs and we all need to rethink, regroup and look for the next party.
Quack Quack. No matter what I do, which expression I choose. It always looks like a duck face…
@matjaz, ok brace yourself once more, here goes. :—)
As I don’t fully yet understand the concept of this coming app, or what it may offer regarding features and workflow, its then hard to really say and I will need to generalize.
But I would push and suggest towards a more vanilla HTML5 semantic approach even when gleaning from Bootstrap, coupled with general Flexbox, CSS Grid, etc. So while Bootstrap does easily offer layout, content, components, utilities, mixins, extends, responsiveness, etc., its all just seen as vanilla from most designers points of view. So the ability for lots of creative styling and user adaptations need to occur past this foundation in their minds right from the beginning regardless of components used.
Even though the majority of things occur in this underlying component scaffolding, in designers minds its only after this stage where most of them begin their thinking. They want to just freely and creatively build and “style” things based upon their design criteria’s and imaginations.
So lets run through some of it …
In doing so they want to easily be able to style the Navbar allowing for any configuration (Mega menus included) and then re-style as they need across breakpoints and mobile. Along with all the other page content items such as Cards, Tabs, Accordions, Forms, Carousels, Sliders, Lightboxes, Filterable and Sortable Portfolios, Scroll Effects, Element Animations and Transitions (CSS/JS), etc. With easy access to Text, Fonts, Icon Sets, responsive Media format inclusions, Images, SVG, Video, Audio, Lazy Loading, Media Players.
Then come the input Forms, Logins, Newsletter signups, etc., which they expect to be working with associated backend files upon export. Along with easy opportunities to connect to and use various required 3rd party integrations and services from across the web. With all the needed access to entry points for doing so along with adding other CSS and JS Plugins and Libraries, with needed wrappers, data-attributes, etc.
Then comes needing to include and offer various Analytics, Location Maps, Site Search, XML Site Maps, CMS solutions, Blogs, E-Commerce, full Social Media integrations, SEO, Local Schema, Localization, WCAG Accessibility, GDPR, Favicon and Touch Icons, etc. While easily being able to upload their finished creations via built in FTP. With the ability to easily share live remote design reviews with clients during the design process.
Basically most features which they encounter across the web themselves is where their expectations begin and I am sure I easily forgot some others which they likewise expect. ;—) Those are some of the things I was referring towards above (in the last bullet point seen again below). So as stated the entry list when designing for the modern web, even at a basic level is vast even for designers.
But if you are speaking of a more semantic approach when using Bootstrap such as this example article and avoiding the general “divitis” which Bootstrap tends to bring. Then yes it would be much better than a purely Bootstrap approach, if that is what you are saying and planning?
Regardless much more needs to occur above any base framework concerning workflow. As I tried to summarize above and which is demonstrated by the mentioned online competition - they and their users have proven most of that and they are working towards even more. Which is not to say it all could not be done and likewise provided in a “Pinegrow desktop app for Web Designers”. Certainly it can, much of the core is already in place with Pinegrow as was previously mentioned and you certainly know. :–)
In the end, from what I have witnessed designers want to quickly begin above this draft vanilla scaffolding. They simply want to begin designing, styling, creating and deploying – albeit with a vast needed feature criteria to work with & build upon with their design skills.
From the few pine needles you have supplied throughout this thread as descriptions of this new Pinegrow designer centric product, perhaps thats the direction you are headed?
PS: How about the team finally also provides the Pinegrow API Documentation to the public. So others can likewise extend this new Designer product in ways if that would be possible. But at least it would offer a more easy and transparent opportunity for people to extend Pinegrow, much more than has been done to this point.
PinegowUser filter engaged …
Your reminiscence about the early days of the web reminds me of how I would tell people about the early days of computers, and how we’d dial up BBS’s on our 1200 baud modems, hoping to not get a busy signal. I share your fondness for those simpler, early days on the web, before the hoards of masses arrived via a billion America Online accounts.
Perhaps bulma.io is an alternative worth considering.
P.s. Thanks for all the great comments.
Webflow is ticking the pace in this new kind of hybrid pro designers apps world, and I think matjaz knows this, so this is a good thing because wf is a great peace of software imo, both for visual designers and coders as well.
The following is a personal opinion.
A tool, however powerful and visual it may be, will not give anything really good without a little talent (and solid technical knowledge).
Whatever the application used (Pinegrow, Webflow, Bootstrap Studio etc…) I had the opportunity to see creations as awesome as others were insipid.
Very often, the best creations come from the predefined templates available in the above-mentioned applications and which, unsurprisingly, are made by professional web designers.
In the end, whatever the application used, all too often, beginners or webdesigner apprentices are reduced to cloning (which may be satisfactory to some extent but does not really reflect - in my opinion - “professional” work) or producing sites with a disappointing visual.
Note: This type of situation is not limited to web design. Give me the best tools in the world, it won’t make me a talented interior decorator capable of creating wonders as I saw in the ads… (to the great regret of my wife:))
totally agree, but when that little talent and solid technical knowledge is in your baggage then that tool make a huge difference.
At this point, I reiterate the prerequisites I was talking about earlier in this discussion: If you select modern, robust, very efficient and interoperable tools for any of your particular needs, as long as they can work independently and natively on any of your desktop computers, communicate each other, are able to read/write any genuine HTML/CSS/JS documents and don’t leave you trapped in proprietary formats or processes that does not correspond to standard practices, your pro life will be fine.
To my knowledge, and I’m proud of this, in the list of available visual webdesign applications, there are few candidates who meet all these criteria but Pinegrow is definitely part of my/the perfect mix
Exactly, that is why PG must keep evolving in order to be there in that tool belt of powerful apps but while keeping an eye on the market if you want to compete. Said this imo PG is among the most versatile tools out there. to be honest I still have not have the chance to complete a whole project with it. Slowly migrating away from WF and DW. Thanks
It will be interesting to see how & what this new Pinegrow designer based app offers to circumvent feature and workflow hindrances found in other apps in this same designer based product space. Instead perhaps allowing ‘Professional’ designers and anyone else to express themselves and leverage their talents or desires more freely without simply taking on a cloning or template based approach.
Indeed. That holds true with most anything, even a common toothpick.
Creative talent and thus creative outcomes can vary widely with the same tool regardless of its purpose. Talent always wins out, unless its being wasted.
I would like to point out that my previous remarks do not concern a - currently not existing - new application in the Pinegrow range, but the current iteration of Pinegrow .
I would maybe refute the “not existing” though.
It must exist somewhere out there in the rainbows amongst the unicorns and pots of gold.
Fair enough though that it was not referring to this new app. But most of these designer based apps indeed fall within those statements.
…Damn It! … sigh…
New forum member here, just trying out Pinegrow (along with a stack of other apps) to see if I can inject a bit more speed into my hitherto hand-coded workflow (using Coda). (Of all the apps I’ve tried so far, the clear winners are Webflow and Pinegrow, but I’m not about to hand over $420 USD per year for the luxury of having “unlimited unhosted projects” with Webflow, so I’m liking the look of Pinegrow!)
Interesting discussion! My first reaction (as both designer and developer) was, this sounds confusing. I’d prefer just one app, adding any technically feasible designery features you can, while maintaining complete round-trip editing. However…
My second thought was, the two-app strategy might work if the new app was marketed as a design and prototyping app—that is, it’s a useful first step in the Pinegrow workflow (for everyone), where you can very quickly mock up a nice prototype (including interactivity and even animation), and then, once the design is approved, export it to HTML/CSS for further development. It’s not ideal maybe, but if the apps appear to fulfil completely different stages of the workflow (regardless of sharing a codebase under the hood), then the customer knows not to expect round-trip editing between the two apps.
From a design perspective, the interface and usability of this new app is going to have to be top-notch to compete with all the design apps out there… from oldies like Illustrator, to Affinity Designer, and newer prototyping apps as well. That’s just to woo designers over. (No small task methinks!) From there, the benefits are, one company making the tools for both designer and developer, with a consistent visual language between the two. (I could probably be wooed. )
As for names, I have to be honest… ‘Pinegrow’ didn’t appeal to me at all. It wasn’t until I read your homepage that I started to get excited, thinking ‘these people actually get it!!’ Perhaps the name will grow on me. In any case, you seem to have a bit of brand recognition now, so I’d stick with it across the apps, rather than introduce any new, cutesy names. Something like Pinegrow Designer and Pinegrow Developer. (Or, if you fancy a bit more alliteration, Pinegrow Prototyper, and Pinegrow Producer. Hmm… no, on second thoughts, now it’s sounding like you produce plantation timber.)