Can you please elaborate?
I think such statements without any further info won’t help anyone.
The “real” page width is reflected inside the editor. There is no issue.
Not sure if things can be improved out of the box in that regard, as it’s Gutenberg default functionality.
Please keep in mind that this was only a first impression/walk-through, not a review, so it should be clear that many things were user error.
It’s not planned.
While I agree with this opinion/explanation 100%, I can see the potential need by users.
What would be the thing of a section block and container block?
If it’s solved that way, I can simply use 2 div nested blocks and add a single global class to the parent one.
Multiple structure blocks suits more to builders that bloat their block/element library with unnecessary stuff anyway (mostly because they aren’t that flexible like Cwicly).
While the section situation is not perfectly handled for everyone, it just reflects the philosophy of Cwicly as a perfect example.
I’ve stated it multiple times - I’m very neutral to this topic.
But would feel a bit odd if now suddenly things would change.
However, it’s important to add that I’d always vote for it if there is a poll - don’t get me wrong here.
It shouldn’t.
People seem to be addicted to override predefined styles.
Go to the global elements and make your own default style(s).
So your default button (block) looks exact the way you want.
How is that even an argument?
You don’t need paragraphs or headings, same goes for buttons.
They are all helper blocks.
A single universal block would totally sufficient if I’d follow your logic.
However, if all this (“necessary” because other builders do it that way and that’s why it’s a good idea) stuff is optional, please bloat the hell out of it.
Buttons are planned to be inline-flex.
If you face any issues, please report it here or contact support.
Not sure what you are referring to.
This isn’t only possible, it’s the default behavior.
Can you elaborate?
You can hide Gutenberg’s list view inside the Role Editor.
I disagree here.
It’s the best decision to move all the necessary stuff inside the builder.
With Cwicly and the entire FSE concept, say goodbye to unnecessary backend digging.
One is able to manage everything inside the builder, once everything is set up properly in the backend.
All the settings which are hidden in the backend but which actually design/builder related - that’s a strength of other tools.
Couldn’t disagree more, as I find your points invalid.
You might be more used to how other builders handle it and there is nothing wrong with it.
Agreed. Custom tags should be available at some point.
The tag is working with “enter”, but seems like not all are supported currently. It’s either a bug or recently added tags aren’t support yet. Good find though and I’m sure this will be addressed soon.
Seems like you didn’t make any personal experience with Cwicly yet, as a lot of your points do suggest.
Keep in mind that you can test Cwicly for free.