Yes, templates can look generic and such but the whole point of that is to control the design so that you end up with something that looks decent to the average person. If you want something more custom, learn to code.
More often then not, when you put "robust" tools into the hands of people who don't know what to do, what you end up with is just ugly. Giving the user more choice is sometimes detrimental if they don't know what to do with it.
I think these tools are cool, but I'd like to see more development on editors that teach core concepts like spacing/readability and selecting complimentary colors and guide people through process rather than providing every type of granular control.
I find this to be true with a lot of developers. They know how to code so they have a "robust" tool set but have no idea how to lay out a page and end up with something functional but ugly.
I very much agree that everyone could benefit from learning more core concepts like spacing and complimentary colors.
Knowing how to code has never meant that you know how to build a good webpage.
For instance, let's say you allow someone to click on a div element and specify the padding/margin/positioning. Now multiply that by 10 elements on the screen and give them a blank slate in regards to layout/colors and that's a recipe for ugly.
We seem to want that ideal of total control in a wysiwyg editor (ie build your site from scratch and drag anything anywhere!) but I would suggest that it's something else entirely for the casual website builder. Not templates, but maybe a hybrid.
That said, scrollkit looks pretty awesome and looking forward to how it evolves.
Well, I'm done with scrollkit.com.
There's an interesting irony you might face. Helping non-developers create and publish a website is an incredibly delightful experience for them. It's easy to forget the time years ago when we wrote our first line of code and it worked. It's incredibly satisfying and empowering. It's a great feeling to instill in your users. But that doesn't help them design better pages. In fact, it sometimes works against it. They'll add whacky text, images, and background colors because it's fun to play and create. The more power they have, the more they'll take advantage of it. For one-off personal web pages it won't be a big deal. But for creating serious websites, it might become a problem.
Good luck though! It's great seeing others innovating in this space!
But man, it reminds me of Apple's Pages, which my mother used in December to create THE WORLD'S UGLIEST HOLIDAY NEWSLETTER. When I got it, I was actually embarrassed, wondering what hundreds of other people were thinking when they got it (look at this - has P. been drinking?). I would much, much rather she asked me for some help and allowed me to guide her to a) a better result and b) a rudimentary understanding of how the tool she's using works.
tl;dr - startups shouldn't settle for making something possible for their users - they should make it their mission to help their users become _awesome_ at something.
Really? Just think of the class as a surname and the id as a social security number - many people can have the same surname, and those that have the same one have something in common. Only one person can have a given SSN.
What's hard about it? Okay, one is denoted by '.' and the other by '#', but I'm not sure how something like that gets more complicated.
CSS and Javascript can be a pain overall, but in the end, if you need to know much more than the above, you should really just be learning to use the entire toolbox, not picking and choosing the tools that you think you want (which are oftentimes not the ones you really need).
