Webflow Considerations

Ken H commenting here...  I wanted to jot down a few thoughts about this. Just my opinions...

As far as Bootstrap vs Webflow and the restaurant analogy: I think that Bootstrap is customizable.  The previous version (V3) used to have a website method to select which features you were using and build a customized version of the CSS and JS to download.  That looked like it would be useful.  It seems that they no longer support that web functionality in V4, the current version, but you can get the source SASS files and compile your own customized version. I don't know how commonplace it is to do that, since it's easier to get the whole package and use it.  But the option is there. (And I haven't tried it to know how much of a learning curve it would be, or how well it works out.)  It might have drawbacks, but the option to customize Bootstrap is there, it's not necessarily all or nothing.

I agree that Webflow is very slick and can produce cool websites.  I still have the gut feeling that you might have difficulty editing your site outside of the Webflow environment.  It might depend on the features that you've used, but an example of something that I saw in a quick observation of the extracted version of the current Webflow site and perusal of some of the code is that some of the animation features probably would not be easy to get at. It looks like some unique identifiers are used to mark sections of the HTML code, and those are referenced in the JavaScript code to actually control the animation.  I think that taking the current site and attempting to add a page for another "imaginary" technology group that might eventually be part of TSSG would be an interesting exercise to undertake. It would give more confidence in the ability to make these kinds of changes under this model of ongoing maintenance. Or it might point out features that might be best to avoid if maintaining the site off of the Webflow platform was a goal.

The cost is another consideration - it is great that Webflow is available for use (for a cost currently being carried by a single person, and the site not being shared to others.)  And to impose that methodology (which involves paying, developing the site, exporting and using it, then perhaps not paying, then perhaps someday needing to be able to get back on the site to add things or make changes) on the group for the future seems like a decision that would be hard to make.  Especially considering TSSG's zero budget model.  It seems, though, that if TSSG / Web group made the decision of using Webflow and making that the "supported" version of the site seems like a hard-to-reverse or at least difficult to reverse decision?  And even though you could pay for a month or more, then drop off the site, using the exported code, and perhaps jump back onto the site for another paid month to maybe come back in to make edits - wasn't the statement made that you could not import an external site and use it as a "seed" to make changes?  If that's true, then ongoing maintenance of the site on a part-time paid basis doesn't seem like that would work. (I know that was a little rambling, sorry, maybe I'll come back and rewrite that section?)

The other aspect of this is what you end up with.  Being able to build a website using Webflow might be a valuable skill, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't necessarily learn much about HTML/CSS/JS, if that was your goal. Of course you could try to analyze the code that is generated by Webflow and learn the techniques. But there are also plenty of resources for learning website animation techniques (if you especially like that feature and that's what you want to learn and use) as well as many other things that Webflow uses to output the site.  My point is whether or not you get what you want out of the use and experience with Webflow, and what the learner gets out of it. If Webflow is a most valuable thing to learn, then that's great. If you want to know how to implement the type of site that Webflow can help you generate, then you probably need a different track.

Just some random thoughts, I'm open to discussion if it's valuable to do so. (And perhaps some rethinking about some of my points, if I have the time and inclination to get back to it.)  Thanks for reading!

Hi Ken,

Your opinions are appreciated and valued. Thanks for the time you put into this.

Ken and All,

I will keep my reply short, as I want to encourage others to chime in. I will touch on two points:

1. I have gained far more knowledge of CSS and HTML working with Webflow these past 4 months than I ever did during the past 6 years working weekly with Bootstrap. Looking back... Bootstrap was a crutch that stifled my learning. If someone wants to learn CSS, I would suggest Webflow because the interface tool helps make sense of CSS as you use it.   
2. As for the complexity of code, if I strip away animations and transitions, the data-id-########### codes and other inline opacity and positioning values you are seeing go away leaving a simpler file. Mobile-first web development is also growing more complex in favor of reducing mobile data and bandwidth use. For example: Rather than asking smart phones to receive large high res images and ask the phone's browser to shrink them down, the same image is served in 4 different sizes depending on which viewport width the device has. (You will see that in the exported code too. )

Others please chime in with your opinions and knowledge!

Troy

Troy, 

re 1. - I can see why you learned more - far more obvious as to all the ways the site can be designed. 

re. 2  - Good. 

separate subject: I'm not fond of much animation, like a bit to show some movement upon.  IMHO, once people start reading, the movement can be distracting.   - my 2 cents

Thank you Troy, for posting this discussion.

Thank you Ken, Lora, and Troy for providing comments. 

Regards, Marc Lacroix