You still have to preview to see what the actual results will look like, and you still have to write a ton of CSS with media queries if you want things to look halfway elegant, but at least our clients don't have to have a CS degree to edit a page.īottom line: The block editor doesn't "suck," and as a concept it's fine, but as others here have said, for the foreseeable future you still have to add page-builder-like plugins (Kadence, GeneratePress, even Divi's in on the act.) Which seems to be the reference alternative the block teams are aiming at. On the other hand, blocks are definitely, absolutely is better than ACF-based rows-and-columns hack jobs. ResearchAsAHobby, BarrelRoll) find virtually no difference with Beaver Builder usually coming out ahead. (Also, cough, only if the blocks are really simple.) With caching various independent tests (e.g. I know people say "it's really easy for composition" but I'll just ask how many people are clamoring for a block interface for Microsoft Word, Google Docs, Notepad, TextEdit for the Mac, etc.?Īlso, I keep hearing that blocks are more performant than (modern) page builders (e.g. I haven't looked at the road map lately but I'm hoping they'll also eventually come up with version for front-end editing, as well as something even partially resembling formatting controls.Īs for blogging, I forced myself to start using blocks for blogging a year or so ago. Worse, it's still less obvious, less intuitive, and more clumsy than tin-whistle alternatives like Wix and Squarespace.
It's not so much that it "sucks" as that the interface is still primitive compared to even bad page builders like WPBakery (or whatever they're calling it these days) and incredibly limited when compared to more modern page builders.
0 kommentar(er)
