Hand-coding isn't going to go the way of the dodo, because in practice, web pages are vastly more complex than Photoshop or Word documents.
They need to respond dynamically to window resizing, have rules about which directions text boxes expand in when they overflow with text, how the page operates when a whole section is missing, etc.
Any tool that appropriately allows for all this complexity to be specified, has already become as complex as CSS itself, thus defeating the purpose.
And in my personal front-end experience, 95% of my time is spent on these harder details. Throwing together the basic HTML/CSS skeleton of a page is trivial, and so fast I don't really need a tool to speed it up, especially when that tool is always bound to get something wrong.
> Any tool that appropriately allows for all this complexity to be specified, has already become as complex as CSS itself, thus defeating the purpose.
This was my immediate issue with CSS Hat. The designers are not trained to set up their photoshop files to be properly evaluated in CSS. They do not know CSS, or how it works. They get their pixels "perfect" (or way off most of the time when doing real math with css), but the fact is to use tools like this they have to get on board 100%. For some designers, this is easier than others.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still interested in trying out the tool. Maybe it is magic...
They need to respond dynamically to window resizing, have rules about which directions text boxes expand in when they overflow with text, how the page operates when a whole section is missing, etc.
Any tool that appropriately allows for all this complexity to be specified, has already become as complex as CSS itself, thus defeating the purpose.
And in my personal front-end experience, 95% of my time is spent on these harder details. Throwing together the basic HTML/CSS skeleton of a page is trivial, and so fast I don't really need a tool to speed it up, especially when that tool is always bound to get something wrong.