That’s a great suggestion! I also think I should do a video specifically for new beta testers on how everything works (although we’ve stopped adding people now).
Something to think on, and thanks so much for the constructive ideas, it’s appreciated!
2 Likes
I agree with Dan here, you should not be trying to use Elements in a production environment, that’s what Classic is for. Beta’s are for testing, that’s it.
never did use in production environment but when uploaded to a spare domain I have a few things showed up which didnt show in preview mode…so they got sorted or checked on. if they weren’t published dan wouldn’t have known!!! little things like putting a £ sign which showed ok in preview but not when uploaded…which dan showed me how to sort with a little bit of code
I know you probably think im a Pratt for some of my comments but I really do want this to work as when I kick the bucket my friend has to take over and hes nowhere near as computer literate as me hahaha
You’re all right with us, we’ll do our best to make Elements easy to use!
Hey @dan
I think you expressed your acknowledgement of lot’s of things ‘in the cue’ and testers were just venting their frustrations along the same line. I would think it would be much better to focus on all the to-dos in the beta-testers suggestion list first before demoing new things, as that will calm people’s anxieties about development. Feel free to continue developing new things behind the scenes, but put clearing of to-dos in videos as the main subject of the videos and I think everyone will feel much better about the progress of things.
3 Likes
I know I’m responding to my own post, but something that’s been driving me nuts with Elements is how it uses TailwindCSS but completely misses the fact that Tailwind is built on a utility-first concept, which enables you to add pre-defined utility classes and modifiers to any element in order to create custom designs without writing CSS. However, in Elements we have no way of applying these utility classes unless they have been included/exposed in the specific element/component you’re using, or you enter them into the Advanced → Custom CSS Classes text field, (ie. py-8 px-8 max-w-sm mx-auto bg-white).
This approach either requires the duplication of all common properties for every element (including custom elements), or (what we’re seeing) where every element implements only a few properties, and often in different and confusing ways (different labels, location, widget, etc).
I keep coming back to that the base elements, the core building blocks of Elements, should have an inspector similar to that of Sketch, Pages, etc. (if you’re going to be Apple/Mac only, then lean into it) that enable users to add and remove utilities classes and modifiers in much the way we edit, add and remove background colours, strokes, fonts, etc in other applications. All of the base elements share a vast number of properties (margin, padding, colour, background, border, radius, etc - keeping in mind that they often have AND relationships, not OR, ie. multiple backgrounds, borders, etc.) with each other, and other elements such as Grid, Flex, Images, and Video have a few additional properties that are bespoke to them (columns, rows, gap, src, alt, etc).
Taking an approach like this would create a more intuitive, consistent, and useable interface, and allow custom elements to only focus on the things that make them unique.
4 Likes
I totally see where you are going with this and I support it.
This list can become really long. Apple implements tabs in order to differentiate the available resources. Not saying this isn’t possible, but it would take some very careful thought to get it right.
The biggest challenge I see here is finding the balance between people who know CSS terminology versus those who are expecting an easy to use app that uses “common” terminology.
The UI/UX of Elements will be integral to the success of the product. It’s going to take time, and a lot of thought. Throwing seemingly random properties into one big collapsible list isn’t likely to attract many non-technical users. It’s an ‘easy’ developer or power-user (ie. coming from Blender, Cinema4D, After Effects, etc) solution, not a user-focused one.
I would also strongly err on the ‘common (accessible) terminology’ side wherever possible - especially as Tailwind somewhat abstracts it anyway. Using Tailwind classes within Elements should be optional, being available primarily for power users and developers.
Again, look to Pages and Sketch for inspiration - and then steal as much as you can - like any self-respecting artist 
(or product designer, software developer, business person, etc).
1 Like
You know me, I can’t help but share my questionable humor, so once again I apologize in advance…
WHAT A POWERFULL NEW SCROLL EFFECTS !!!
I can’t wait for the next one 
Please don’t even try to launch a powerfull new boom effects please 
Just in case: I offer follow-ups and support for not too much money, results not guaranteed, no refund nope 
↔
Nobody questioned the obvious ? I spy …
- “Uses a Javascript Library”
- “Show scroll trigger markers”
- “Scroll Trigger”
- “Power 1 Out”
- “Scrub”
Elements Hover Effects & Scroll Effects === GSAP + ScrollTrigger ?
1 Like
Correct! Well spotted 
We are looking at using GSAP for scroll based animations. It’s a very powerful library that gives us a lot of control and flexibility for doing all sorts of animations.
2 Likes
Hi Dan,
I recognise the fantastic possibilities of Elements. Especially the ability to build your own elements is a great feature.
However, I have the impression that your team is not focussing enough on the essential things. I don’t need effects if I can’t even design a good menu. Most websites need menus, grids, text areas, images and footers. If these things match the requirements of the testers you can worry about visual effects but only then.
In my eyes, Elements is more of an alpha than a beta version. A beta is there to find the last bugs. The many structural changes in Elements unfortunately give the impression of an alpha version.
Please don’t show new gimmicks every week, but real progress on the important components.
The potential of Elements is really impressive, but it needs to be utilised. Unfortunately, I will continue to work with Classic, as I can’t see that Elements will be usable for me in the near future.
Concentrate on the essentials, the visual gimmicks can be delivered later.
2 Likes
Dan addressed these concerns yesterday. His reply can be found in the link.
I’ve participated in many beta programs, FMP, Lightroom, Indesign, Photoshop and a bunch of others. I also write (non-web based) apps so I have a decent understanding of the process and how difficult it can be. It’s OK to ask about missing features but to whine and complain in a derogatory tone isn’t helping anyone.
I’ve asked about links and menus and a few others things too, and received the answer.; they know about them, they’re coming, it’s a beta.
Dan and the team are in the best position to determine what gets done first.
If you’re don’t want to live with the restrictions of the beta then wait for the release version. No-one on here was forced to beta test - we ALL requested access. Don’t like it, don’t do it.
3 Likes
Kim…when you tested all these betas…how much did you pay???
ill use my car analogy…heres you new test car to check…but its not got an engine…thats coming down the line sir…but ive already paid…whens the engine coming…ummm dont exactly know sir…but anyway here’s the key take her out for a spin.
my analogy of a beta…heres the keys for you new car sir take her out for a spin…its a test model…I took her out for a spin and theres a strange knocking from the engine…ok sir leave it with us come back tomorrow and the knocking will be fixed…
FEEDBACK is feedback…thats what its here for!!!
I think it was made very clear in the sign-up process what the situation was with the beta with warnings that lots of things could change as the beta progressed and to only purchase the beta if you wanted to support the development.
As Kim says, no-one was forced to beta test - it was your choice to pay to access the beta.
I purchased the beta because I wanted to support Dan and the RM team and to help them out and not because I was expecting an almost production ready App.
3 Likes
well done…
I too want to support Dan and Realmac.
I too wanted to write a paragraph like you have here in elements…but I cant
Basics thats all I said originally. all I wanted was a few basics.
Logrunner said it better than I could. It was VERY clearly spelt out how it was going to work and every beta tester chose to participate with those conditions. I’m not at all bothered by the payment - it gets me a full license, discounts going forward and early beta access. Your analogy couldn’t be more ridiculous.
You say you’re no longer on the beta so why are you still here? It really appears you just want to create noise, which is certainly not a constructive contribution.
quote from Centrecode How Long Should My Beta Test Be?
The typical duration of a beta test will vary depending on its objectives. Of the hundreds of tests we’ve run for customers in the last two years, about half of them were between three and five weeks of testing time.
here cos I still want elements to work…but you never answered my question…how much did you pay for all your beta testing
and if you look at my original post…all I asked for was a couple of BASICS thats all…perfect example is right here in this post…BOLD, ITALICS, LINKS,