If there's html behind the canvas that elements on the canvas are mapped to, why render everything in the canvas at all instead of just using html/css?
Lets use two applications that are out on the market as examples.
Webflow: Produces good HTML and CSS but you still as the designer are expected to deal with ID's and classes directly. You also need to at least have a rudimentary understanding of css styling and the box model, designers are allergic to that.
Webydo: All design, but try to use the html inspector and check the code it produces. It is bloated. Check out one of the websites in their showcase, http://muccatypo.com/
One of the advantages using the canvas this way is that it allows the page to be rendered only through the use of numerical data saving bandwidth when delivering a webpage.
WF founder chiming in here ... the beauty of giving designers the ability to create CSS classes, build with the box model, and think about HTML/CSS concepts is so they can leverage the power of the browser to help them design a production ready, responsive website. There may be designers that are allergic, but there are also many that embrace it.
Lets use two applications that are out on the market as examples.
Webflow: Produces good HTML and CSS but you still as the designer are expected to deal with ID's and classes directly. You also need to at least have a rudimentary understanding of css styling and the box model, designers are allergic to that.
Webydo: All design, but try to use the html inspector and check the code it produces. It is bloated. Check out one of the websites in their showcase, http://muccatypo.com/
One of the advantages using the canvas this way is that it allows the page to be rendered only through the use of numerical data saving bandwidth when delivering a webpage.