> I don’t want to offend anyone here, but building pages is more than just writing content and placing it somewhere on the page. You should leave this job to a professional, especially if you want to maintain the site on a longer run.
But this use case of simply getting some content accessible on the web is the primary reason why page builders are so popular :)
For example, a large number small of businesses just want simple page displaying their working hours and some pictures of inventory. If you go to a "professional development agency" and ask them to build you a site with just these features, you will get a quote for 200 thousand dollars upwards (speaking from experience). With page builders, you can get your nephew to build you a site during school off-season and it will be infinetly better than having no site at all and still probably do the job well enough as a professionally built one.
I get that the original post is basically a sales pitch, but there is huge value to be had from page builders and it's dishonest not to mention it.
I once clicked on a restaurant website. It was plain text on an empty background. The only content was their address, phone number, hours, and a link to a PDF of their menu.
The site asked for forgiveness and assured me that it was "under construction". But it was already perfect.
Here medium to larger businesses are not the size as those in the US, but many of them here use page builders as well. There has been quite some backlash to the 'professionally coded web-presence'; long and frustrating processes and the end result is less maintainable than if they had used a page builder so it has to be redone every so many years because 'the tech is outdated' aka the team moved on.
> I get that the original post is basically a sales pitch, but there is huge value to be had from page builders and it's dishonest not to mention it.
What's dishonest is this passage:
> For example, a large number small of businesses just want simple page displaying their working hours and some pictures of inventory. If you go to a "professional development agency" and ask them to build you a site with just these features, you will get a quote for 200 thousand dollars upwards (speaking from experience).
edit: unless the agency preemptively fired problematic clients :), take the hint
I think the article misses the point that people just want to get things done. Particularly this point is so naive:
> using a page builder doesn’t make you a developer.
People who are using page builders are not doing to pass the arbitrary qualifications of being a developer. They just want to get something done and getting a developer to create a performant page is just so much more expensive. Even within big companies some departments leverage these because getting developer bandwidth is just too expensive for most of these use cases.
It’s a wrong assumption and a marketing trick of all major page builders.
For a one-person business, sure thing, maybe go with it.
For all other use cases they are a liability, and a time consuming effort by people that shouldn’t be spending their (precious) time building a website for the first time.
As a web designer / FE developer and wordpress developer, I am happy they exist because they’re great business.
The client starts with one template picked at random based on the wrong assumption that what you see in the frontend is tied to the template, two months in they realize that the marketing claims of Elementor or Divi or whatev where BS, and get frustrated about the unholy mess they’ve made.
That’s when I get usually called in - mostly via word of mouth - to “fix the mess”.
What I usually do is guide the client through why having a custom theme with flexible repeatable components is a much better idea.
Then we sit down and we make a complete content outline to better structure what they’ve been scattering around the site in different pages with no separation of concerns between content, structure and graphic design (99% of the time this is really the problem they didn’t know they needed to solve first!). After that, I get to refactor the site into a lean, SEO-friendly structure, and finally I can sell them a small retainer for maintenance, because they finally understood that two hours of their time are worth MORE than a few hundred dollars they pay to a professional to keep the machine humming
That makes it sound completely naive but I think that conclusion would be too rash. it seems like the author has some audience in mind. Perhaps himself after trying a page builder.
I find this whole thing thoroughly unconvincing. Page builders provide enormous value for a modest price. If you run into an insurmountable problem with one, you could rebuild your whole site on a different platform (including manually copying over all the content), and then do that again a few more times, and still spend far less than you would having an agency develop a bespoke site with the latest trendy tech that will be obsolete next month anyway.
The fraction of businesses that need something really custom/special is vanishingly small. And the fraction of businesses that need a pixel-perfect design and consistency across all their pages is tiny, too. Your customers don't care about that crap nearly as much as you do. Just keep it simple and make the information they're looking for easy to find.
I'm a software engineer. I love building stuff. I can make kick-ass web stuff if called upon to do so. But please, don't waste your money paying me to build something you don't need.
The only issue i find with your proposition is that one could simply rebuild a whole site on a different platform: while that is true, one does not own or hold the code for the site as built using a website builder afaik (correct me if im wrong) and hence it is difficult to get similar results as the one on the "current" builder and takes up extra labour, where hiring a website builder and maintainer will ensure the ownership of the code.
There are many things that can be done better by experts.
But to double the quality, you multiply by 10 the cost.
E.G: I wanted to start writing again. I had an idea for the entire structure of the site, and pretty neat features I only could get if I coded it myself.
Then I started to feel like writing, so I wrote. As usual, it took hours, then I had to go back to my life.
I was now left with the choice of not publishing for months, and being frustrated in the writing process, or just use a ready-made platform.
I chose the latter. I went to substack. And publish the first of the 3 articles I already wrote. Next week, I will be able to publish the next ones, and write more.
Because it turns out I want to write and publish more than I want to code a publication platform. No matter how awesome the platform was going to be in my head.
So page builder are a very good idea. Because we don't live in a universe without constraints, and most humanity has to make Pareto choices.
I think their objections are deeper than that. I haven't used wordpress for ages, but they're talking about 'drag and drop builders' which I'd associate more with wix or Squarespace than wordpress.
Fundamentally, I think the issue is that it's very hard to achieve modularisation, especially via a gui, if the client doesn't understand or care about it.
> The content is not reusable (you cannot reuse content on other pages).
> The design is not consistent (pages often don’t look the same).
> The site is not maintainable (change on one page doesn’t propagate to other pages).
> The content is not maintainable (the content cannot be easily extracted from the database).
> The site is not very performant (page builders load a lot of extra assets).
All the above depends on the tool that's used. I've set up many sites that had page builder features but didn't have these drawbacks. Certainly there's many other tools out there. What OP seems to be talking about are page builders that output and store raw html.
> There’s always a missing feature (page builders cannot solve all your problems).
True, but that goes for literally anything you can use to build websites, all the way down to the HTML spec. And extending the page builder is often possible with professional help.
> Getting to know page builder doesn’t make you a developer (leave the job to a professional).
Developers are not by definition a professional in all aspects of page creation. A user well versed in, say, WordPress, will know about the drawbacks as well, and know how to mitigate them.
I'm not a big fan of page builders myself, but there's a place and time for these tools. I'm currently working with a team to implement a 1.000 page website in contentful and react, based on similar thinking as OP. It's an absolute shit show and it feels like being the hostage of 'professional developers'.
In the end the most important is to choose the right tool for the job, and there's a place for these page builders.
I simple mix and match. Almost all page builders have shortcodes or codeblocks in some shape way or form. I can do easy things the easy way or use code plumbing where necessary. Pick the right tool for the job is a skill by itself I always found (that and everything takes twice as long as you think it does)
Page builders are only seen as bad ideas when you have better ideas to choose from. In most cases, hiring a professional is not a viable alternative to doing it yourself.
And since none of the problems presented here are new or unique to sites built with page builders, it follows that the others ideas don’t actually solves them.
The advantages out weigh the disadvantages. There are more layman than professionals. And worse yet profs are taking longer and longer to build simple websites.
Hello, founder and CTO of www.shopstory.app here. None if these arguments apply if you build page builder right. I believe we're on the right path.
First, it works inside of headless CMSes. It means that you get all advantages of structured content and yet add sprinkles of unstructured content when you need on top of that. You can always connect structured data into visual blocks built with Shopstory.
As for design consistency we build everything around design tokens. Not only fonts and colors but also page margins, grid gaps etc. Also, you will soon have permission system where designers can build templates but editors can't modify visual properties.
The bottom line is that I believe in the future we won't need to make a tradeoff between visual vs structured. You can have both at the same time and just fine tune the system to whatever direction suits you better.
It's simple, page builders allow users to do it themselves and it allows the page builder platform to have high margins - they are CHEAP to run and entirely predictable.
The few page/site builders that use dynamic data, such as Duda (in part) and Builder.io very much reflect the cost difference, from 10€ of standard page builders to 99€-449€/mo for builder.io.
I'd say that there are builders that solve every one of his points, but they are very costly.
Almost none of the complaints are true of Webflow, FWIW. It's by no means perfect, but there are many use cases where it is a much smarter decision than contracting or hiring a site engineer.
Sprinkle in some custom widgets as needed and you can get pretty far (albeit not with optimal page speed performance).
> And that is the seventh problem: using a page builder doesn’t make you a developer. Developers and users don’t think alike. Developers’ brain works completely different, and it is always trying to solve problems in the most efficient way. Experienced developers predict and anticipate problems way before they emerge.
Someone should let the WP Core devs know, because the page builder SaaSes have been eating their lunch delivering on business website needs while Automattic lurches from one disaster to another with their "dev-friendly" Gutenberg full site editor.
I use page builders every day despite being able to code, I think they're great but they all suffer from the same issue. The developers of the page builder tool need to decide what you can change and what you can't, and it's purely subjective. If you make absolutely everything editable you've just replaced editing CSS with a GUI (more or less Webflow) and you can't hand over a complex UI to a non-dev. I don't know how you solve this problem.
Page builders and LLMs are the future. There was a time when that wouldn't be as plausible, but the web is reverting back to being a place to dump text and media, and host restaurant menus, in which case it begs the question why we need so many web developers.
This is outdated and suppose you are writing yet another bad page builder. Most argument apply to any technology that do not make a proper use of a component based architecture, code generation or static rendering. For instance Plasmic is adamant to allow compatibility with modern framework such as Next.js and even has been a pioneer in the field of static personalization, a very performant approach.
Indeed, I believe there's a lot of innovation to be had by page builders - Plasmic's approach is to blur the lines between the codebase and the visual editor, so we try to directly confront the myriad issues laid out by three OP.
I've long been building the contrary position. Our industry has taken massive steps backwards by not embracing content creation tools in our pipelines. Imagine if game devs insisted on art being hand crafted triangle by triangle?
Poorly written article with poorly written arguments. What this person doesn't like is bad page builders, which is reasonable. But they seem completely unaware of what is possible in modern page builders.
lpapez|2 years ago
But this use case of simply getting some content accessible on the web is the primary reason why page builders are so popular :)
For example, a large number small of businesses just want simple page displaying their working hours and some pictures of inventory. If you go to a "professional development agency" and ask them to build you a site with just these features, you will get a quote for 200 thousand dollars upwards (speaking from experience). With page builders, you can get your nephew to build you a site during school off-season and it will be infinetly better than having no site at all and still probably do the job well enough as a professionally built one.
I get that the original post is basically a sales pitch, but there is huge value to be had from page builders and it's dishonest not to mention it.
YokoZar|2 years ago
The site asked for forgiveness and assured me that it was "under construction". But it was already perfect.
anonzzzies|2 years ago
johnchristopher|2 years ago
What's dishonest is this passage:
> For example, a large number small of businesses just want simple page displaying their working hours and some pictures of inventory. If you go to a "professional development agency" and ask them to build you a site with just these features, you will get a quote for 200 thousand dollars upwards (speaking from experience).
edit: unless the agency preemptively fired problematic clients :), take the hint
darreninthenet|2 years ago
crop_rotation|2 years ago
> using a page builder doesn’t make you a developer.
People who are using page builders are not doing to pass the arbitrary qualifications of being a developer. They just want to get something done and getting a developer to create a performant page is just so much more expensive. Even within big companies some departments leverage these because getting developer bandwidth is just too expensive for most of these use cases.
camillomiller|2 years ago
As a web designer / FE developer and wordpress developer, I am happy they exist because they’re great business. The client starts with one template picked at random based on the wrong assumption that what you see in the frontend is tied to the template, two months in they realize that the marketing claims of Elementor or Divi or whatev where BS, and get frustrated about the unholy mess they’ve made. That’s when I get usually called in - mostly via word of mouth - to “fix the mess”. What I usually do is guide the client through why having a custom theme with flexible repeatable components is a much better idea. Then we sit down and we make a complete content outline to better structure what they’ve been scattering around the site in different pages with no separation of concerns between content, structure and graphic design (99% of the time this is really the problem they didn’t know they needed to solve first!). After that, I get to refactor the site into a lean, SEO-friendly structure, and finally I can sell them a small retainer for maintenance, because they finally understood that two hours of their time are worth MORE than a few hundred dollars they pay to a professional to keep the machine humming
So I guess yeah, thanks DIVI and Elementor?
tannhaeuser|2 years ago
Not only is it naive but based on the sad, self-centric failure to understand the original purpose of the web as a means for publishing hypertext.
nonethewiser|2 years ago
jeffparsons|2 years ago
The fraction of businesses that need something really custom/special is vanishingly small. And the fraction of businesses that need a pixel-perfect design and consistency across all their pages is tiny, too. Your customers don't care about that crap nearly as much as you do. Just keep it simple and make the information they're looking for easy to find.
I'm a software engineer. I love building stuff. I can make kick-ass web stuff if called upon to do so. But please, don't waste your money paying me to build something you don't need.
altair222|2 years ago
BiteCode_dev|2 years ago
But to double the quality, you multiply by 10 the cost.
E.G: I wanted to start writing again. I had an idea for the entire structure of the site, and pretty neat features I only could get if I coded it myself.
Then I started to feel like writing, so I wrote. As usual, it took hours, then I had to go back to my life.
I was now left with the choice of not publishing for months, and being frustrated in the writing process, or just use a ready-made platform.
I chose the latter. I went to substack. And publish the first of the 3 articles I already wrote. Next week, I will be able to publish the next ones, and write more.
Because it turns out I want to write and publish more than I want to code a publication platform. No matter how awesome the platform was going to be in my head.
So page builder are a very good idea. Because we don't live in a universe without constraints, and most humanity has to make Pareto choices.
It's just a trade off, as usual in IT.
tyingq|2 years ago
>The content is not reusable (you cannot reuse content on other pages)
Not sure I understand this. Platforms like WordPress certainly have widgets, reusable blocks, shared headers/footers, and so on.
oneeyedpigeon|2 years ago
Fundamentally, I think the issue is that it's very hard to achieve modularisation, especially via a gui, if the client doesn't understand or care about it.
is_true|2 years ago
masklinn|2 years ago
robador|2 years ago
All the above depends on the tool that's used. I've set up many sites that had page builder features but didn't have these drawbacks. Certainly there's many other tools out there. What OP seems to be talking about are page builders that output and store raw html.
> There’s always a missing feature (page builders cannot solve all your problems).
True, but that goes for literally anything you can use to build websites, all the way down to the HTML spec. And extending the page builder is often possible with professional help.
> Getting to know page builder doesn’t make you a developer (leave the job to a professional).
Developers are not by definition a professional in all aspects of page creation. A user well versed in, say, WordPress, will know about the drawbacks as well, and know how to mitigate them.
I'm not a big fan of page builders myself, but there's a place and time for these tools. I'm currently working with a team to implement a 1.000 page website in contentful and react, based on similar thinking as OP. It's an absolute shit show and it feels like being the hostage of 'professional developers'.
In the end the most important is to choose the right tool for the job, and there's a place for these page builders.
prox|2 years ago
hjkl0|2 years ago
And since none of the problems presented here are new or unique to sites built with page builders, it follows that the others ideas don’t actually solves them.
32gbsd|2 years ago
r00dY|2 years ago
First, it works inside of headless CMSes. It means that you get all advantages of structured content and yet add sprinkles of unstructured content when you need on top of that. You can always connect structured data into visual blocks built with Shopstory.
As for design consistency we build everything around design tokens. Not only fonts and colors but also page margins, grid gaps etc. Also, you will soon have permission system where designers can build templates but editors can't modify visual properties.
The bottom line is that I believe in the future we won't need to make a tradeoff between visual vs structured. You can have both at the same time and just fine tune the system to whatever direction suits you better.
textninja|2 years ago
I don’t think site-level consistency is as important or prevalent as you’d think.
tmikaeld|2 years ago
The few page/site builders that use dynamic data, such as Duda (in part) and Builder.io very much reflect the cost difference, from 10€ of standard page builders to 99€-449€/mo for builder.io.
I'd say that there are builders that solve every one of his points, but they are very costly.
totalhack|2 years ago
Sprinkle in some custom widgets as needed and you can get pretty far (albeit not with optimal page speed performance).
rchaud|2 years ago
Someone should let the WP Core devs know, because the page builder SaaSes have been eating their lunch delivering on business website needs while Automattic lurches from one disaster to another with their "dev-friendly" Gutenberg full site editor.
pupppet|2 years ago
mftb|2 years ago
keithalewis|2 years ago
ozim|2 years ago
Nowadays these are "UX/UI designers" who most likely will also be not that needed soon.
ravenstine|2 years ago
altair222|2 years ago
traverseda|2 years ago
https://imgur.com/a/vlQQBDZ
al2o3cr|2 years ago
eric-burel|2 years ago
yaaang|2 years ago
Indeed, I believe there's a lot of innovation to be had by page builders - Plasmic's approach is to blur the lines between the codebase and the visual editor, so we try to directly confront the myriad issues laid out by three OP.
taeric|2 years ago
blairbeckwith|2 years ago
chickenchicken|2 years ago