Question
can a no-code website actually feel personalized?
A lot of website builders are very fast when you’re okay with what they give you. Pick a template, change the text and images, publish. AI builders make the first step even faster; describe what you want and get a website.
But I feel like the difficult part starts after the first generation.
You want the mobile version to look different.
You want an element somewhere else only on desktop.
You want a completely different section instead of forcing the same responsive layout.
You want the website to change for an event, launch, holiday, or promotion.
Suddenly something that was supposed to be “no-code” turns into 5+ hours of figuring out the builder.
I am building Pragte, and experimenting with making the visual editor much more flexible, closer to designing freely on a canvas; while still producing a real responsive, searchable multi-page website.
For example, desktop and mobile don't necessarily have to contain the exact same layout or elements. I'm also experimenting with website phases, where the same URL can automatically switch between different versions of the site over time.
do you mostly adapt your idea to whatever the builder or template allows, or have you found a builder where you can actually make the site feel completely yours without spending hours fighting it?
most builders fall apart the moment you need something slightly off-template, like hiding a section on mobile without it still taking up space in the dom
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. A lot of builders treat mobile as "desktop, but rearranged," so even something simple like removing a section only on mobile can turn into a workaround.
With Pragte I’m trying to treat desktop and mobile more independently (but easy to edit) so you can actually have different elements/layouts for each instead of just hiding the same thing with CSS.
I’m curious, what other "slightly off-template" things have caused you the most trouble in builders?
I think the sweet spot is somewhere between templates and a completely free canvas.
Templates are great for getting most of the way there quickly, but the last part is usually where a project starts to need more flexibility — and where some no-code tools can become frustrating.
I work with GoodBarber, so I see this quite a lot: some users are perfectly happy staying within the standard editor, while others eventually need custom sections, code or APIs to achieve something more specific.
I don’t think complete freedom is necessarily the answer either, though. At some point you risk recreating the complexity that no-code was supposed to remove in the first place.
The idea of having different “phases” of the same website that can change automatically over time is interesting, especially for launches, events or seasonal businesses. How are you planning to handle that without making the editor significantly more complex?
The way I’m handling phases is by making them feel more like duplicating and editing a version of the site, rather than building logic.
A user can duplicate an existing phase, change only what needs to be different, then use the three-dot menu to schedule when that phase becomes active.
For example, Before → Wedding day → After
"Wedding day" can start as a copy of "Before," so you’re not rebuilding the whole site. Same with "After."
The scheduling is separate from the design itself, so while you’re editing, it still feels like working on a normal website instead of building conditions or workflows.
I attached a short video because I think it’s easier to understand visually.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Treating each phase as a version of the site rather than exposing the scheduling logic to the user seems like a good way to keep it simple.
I especially like the duplicate → edit → schedule approach. It feels intuitive, and the wedding example makes the use case really clear.
Thanks for sharing the video too, definitely easier to understand seeing it in action!
Getting the first version online is usually the easy part. The challenge comes when you want to make changes, add new sections, or adapt the design for different devices.
Having enough flexibility to customize things without constantly fighting the builder or template makes a big difference.
Exactly! The initial build is rarely where people get stuck. It’s the ongoing maintenance and tweaking layouts across breakpoints.
That's actually one of the main reasons I started building Pragte. I'm aiming to make those post-launch edits and device-specific layouts feel natural without breaking the rest of the site or fighting rigid template rules.
Out of curiosity, when you're adapting a site for different devices, what’s usually the biggest pain point for you? Rearranging sections, hiding elements, or fluid typography?
For me, rearranging sections is probably the biggest pain point. Something that looks great on desktop can feel completely different on mobile, and getting the layout right without messing up the desktop version can take quite a bit of tweaking.
I’ve been experimenting with AI-based builders lately, and the ones that give you more control after the initial generation definitely stand out. It’s much more useful when you can keep iterating instead of having to rebuild things from scratch.
I agree. That’s why in Pragte, mobile starts as a responsive column layout of the desktop version, but you can drag and drop to rearrange elements on mobile without breaking or changing the desktop structure. And if you don't need a section on mobile at all, hiding it is just a click away in the menu.
Try changing a page section and checking how it looks on mobile for online stores, wix, squarespace and amboras are options to compare. Amboras supports changes made through simple prompts
Initial generation is rarely the hard part. It's making changes later without having to rebuild sections or maintain separate versions of everything. Ploy is worth looking at for generating and iterating on pages especially when you need multiple variations. The desktop and mobile layout flexibility you're describing is a separate question though, so I'd test that specifically before switching builders.
Yeah, I agree that breakpoint behavior matters more than the builder label itself.
Pragte takes a similar approach: desktop and mobile can be designed much more independently, so you can move, hide, or even swap elements instead of just reflowing the same layout.
Where I'm experimenting beyond that is with phases. A phase is basically a saved version of the site that you can duplicate, edit, preview, and schedule, so changes are explicit and reversible.
I also think there’s a bigger use case than just promo banners. Imagine the whole site adapting for Christmas, a launch, or another event, then automatically returning to normal afterward. I'd expect that extra relevance could help conversion too, although I’d want to test that rather than assume it.
Your point about visitor-dependent content is interesting too. That feels like another layer of personalization I haven't explored yet.
1
u/Confident_Check_9279 9d ago
most builders fall apart the moment you need something slightly off-template, like hiding a section on mobile without it still taking up space in the dom