"beautiful" and "responsive" have become two of the biggest "buzzword bingo" words of the web these last few years. So many people telling you that their stuff is beautiful that the word starts to lose value.
"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.
But unfortunately the original meaning of "responsive" as Marcotte coined the term has been diluted by people who apply the term to any site that uses media queries to change its layout on a mobile device. There is more to responsive web design than media queries, and there are plenty of ways to use media queries to adapt a site to different devices that aren't responsive web design.
Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion. If a layout uses media queries to 'respond' to different screen sizes, it is by definition 'responsive'. Anything past that starts to be an aesthetic/no true scotsman type of argument.
Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion.
I don't have much interest in a lengthy argument about this, but FYI, the term "Responsive Web Design" was coined by Ethan Marcotte in an article for A List Apart in May 2010[1]. What it means is only a No True Scotsman type of argument if you choose to ignore the original source, or maybe if you want to argue about whether "responsive web design" and "Responsive Web Design" mean different things, neither of which seems particularly constructive.
Sure, but if you want to drive on the road, it's still at least a bit helpful to know that the framework is not, in fact, a boat. (I wonder if someone could give a Devil's Advocate position on the advantages of a non-responsive framework...)
Advantages of a non-responsive framework:
Less complexity. This leads to more speed and reliability in terms of development, deployment, and maintenance.
If I was building something that saw no significant advantages from being responsive (e.g. an ATM GUI) I'd definitely skip it.
I love Webflow, and have used it for multiple projects, but I personally feel like it's way too expensive. As a student, I could literarily get the entire adobe creative suite for cheaper than the Webflow plan I would need would cost. And, as I only create a few static web pages a year, there's no way I can justify paying for Webflow.
Hey, this is Kyle from the Webflow team. We actually offer a great discount for students now. Shoot us an email at support@webflow.com and we can hook you up!
+1, the individual plans are too expensive and also there is no support for the use case of just using the tool without paying for their hosting. I keep coming back to their website because I need such a tool and theirs is one the best but get totally disappointed as soon as I see their prices.
While limited in features, Weebly has a "designer platform" where you can make unlimited websites for preview, and then publish websites for $8/month. Form submissions don't cost anything.
I also use webflow but it definitely seems geared toward small agencies. The individual pricing plan is too much. Again I love the tool and would gladly pay for if the individual plan's cost went down.
The Webflow.com website was mostly designed in Webflow, but we had some limitations at the time that required us to hand-code things. A new version is in the works that is completely created in Webflow, so it's only a matter of time :)
Pretty much all of our other sites (e.g. [1][2]) are already built/hosted/managed on Webflow.
Your web site is actually pretty terrible. Why do you need those fancy effects? The result is that text starts to fade out if I'm scrolling while I'm reading it, and images don't appear until I've scrolled past where the top of the image would be, so I have to scroll back up to see the top of the image that just appeared. Please, designers, stop trying to be clever for the sake of it. You're guaranteed to make the browsing experience worse for some people.
This is what we did with contentactivator.com. We wanted to promote our app through the sites we built. We even used it for our support site at help.contentactivator.com.
I read the pricing FAQ but I'm still a bit confused.
Here's my use case:
I host my own web apps & sites.
I would like to use WebFlow to redesign one of them. Should take me about a month.
Do I only pay for a month, and then export, and then quit paying?
What happens when, 1 year from now, I want to tweak the site? Can WebFlow import old webflow projects? Or do I need to pay for every intervening month to preserve the ability to use WebFlow on that site in the future?
Hi there, Webflow founder here!
We actually have a free trial, which lets you design and export as many sites as you'd like in a 2 week period. If you're still working on your site after your trial is over you have the option of upgrading to the Personal plan which gives you the ability to export your sites. You can cancel at any time and we never delete your work, so you can come back a year later and redesign your site again.
Yes it's small beer, but I'm baffled that something they give you for free on the cheapest plan (custom domain), they want to charge you for on more expensive plans.
1000 form submissions per site and month in the top plan ($840 per year) and $0.01 for each after reaching the limit? They don't mean clicking on the submit button of a HTML form, do they? That would mean that a bot submitting a form every second for 24 hours would add $864 to the bill.
This was my understanding as well. And is by far the most restricting feature on Webflow.
Makes even less sense considering the largest "cost" is simply db space.
I'm a designer and know about them for some time, but I really dislike the pay-every-month plan. That's not how it works for me with design jobs. I might need several projects at once and have no (webdesign)projects after that. I'd rahter see a pay-as-you-go plan. Also: bugfixing. I think I still need someone to do that for me with a service like this.
I have never used webflow, but it seems to me that you could create a project and then when you are happy with it, you could "export" the site. This gives you the css/html/js necessary. Then you could put the site on your own hosting and then cancel your plan. That way you would only pay the months that you are actually using it.
For images that just stay fixed, background-attachment: fixed does the job nicely. For things like parallax, stuff popping into view, etc, you basically write a function that gets called on scroll events and does what you need. It usually ends up being kind of hacky, with magical equations that take the value from .scrollTop() (jquery) as an input. It's best not to overthink these things.
Bootstrap has an affix function which will help you make nav bars that stick to the top of the page. There are many other 'scrolling frameworks' out there, but I've found them to be a waste of time, myself.
It's too expensive for personal use, I would like to see a pay as you go plan such a flat fee by website. Maybe Pre pay 3, 6, 12 months or any other options to make it a no brainer.
The product itself is very very cool. I'm amazed by what is technically possible in modern web browsers.
I'm mostly a backend dev, who knows basic frontend stuff.
If I need to build a marketing website should I choose WebFlow or Startup Design Framework?
Does WebFlow uses Bootstrap 3?
