Does the client need website builders?

To answer such a seemingly obvious question, quickly go over the materiel. So, common content management systems can be divided into the following types by application:

1. Personal site designers are designed for a wide range of developers, including non-programmers. The best and most popular representative - Wordpress;
2. Designers of "large" information sites, multi-user systems, consumers are the same. The most popular representative is Drupal;
3. Corporate site designers. They are mainly used by web studio developers and freelancers. In addition to their own developments, of which the majority, 1C-Bitrix is ​​becoming increasingly popular in Russia.

So, I will take the liberty to assert that the “constructor” functional only makes sense in the first case. Those. for amateur development in a good way. For the developer’s own pleasure.

If we are talking about high-quality professional development of Internet resources, the functionality of the designer is nothing more than a beautiful and cumbersome wrapper. In the first lines of the description of each such designer, and especially commercial CMS, there is a statement that this product will allow you to create and develop Internet resources without involving developers. Not specified, however, what quality will be obtained online resources without developers.

Let us expand the arguments of the developer company offering the designer to the client:

1. The ability to develop a resource independently, without contacting the developer. Create new pages, select and edit templates, create new news blocks ... Aha, wait! One might think that in order to insert a new news block into an arbitrary place on the site, participation, for example, of designers who care about the integrity and consistency of the navigation structure is not required. After all, we are talking about high-quality development! As a result, a serious client trusts this task to professionals and the designer lies with unused cargo, cluttering up the interface and scaring the “site manager” on the client side with an abundance of incomprehensible buttons and fields.
2. Alienability of the product (in the case of the use of common designers). Like, if we quarrel with you, you can always turn to another developer, because professionals with experience with such a popular system as X, are a dime a dozen. Yes, right, if the site functionality does not go beyond the standard modules in the delivery of this system. It is necessary to add something a little bit complicated and at the same time non-standard and everything, goodbye alienation.
3. What else ... Oh, yes! The most powerful visual editors that allow you to copy text directly from the Word. I think that people for whom design is not only a “beautiful hat” plus a text, who understand that in information design, competent text formatting determines the site’s visual solution and its perception, it’s obvious to them the consequences of using magic editors.

Well, what remains? In my opinion, the optimal offer to the client is a convenient and simple interface for filling with content. The backend should contain only those controls that the client will actually use. As for visual editors, it’s very good to follow the principle “the simpler the better”. Here on Habré, for example, a good editor :)