[HN Gopher] Show HN: Konty - A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wirefr...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Konty - A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for
modern apps
Author : niklauslee
Score : 346 points
Date : 2024-09-12 03:31 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (konty.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (konty.app)
| janwillemb wrote:
| Looks nice! Maybe add some explanation about licensing on the
| first pages.
|
| And the name sounds like "butty" in Dutch, so that will be hard
| for me to recommend out loud for my Dutch IT students.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| Coq apparently renamed since professors have to introduce it to
| 18 year olds each year.
| Lio wrote:
| That's nothing. In certain English accents pronouncing "konty"
| is likely to cause even bigger, er, headaches than an innocent
| reference to a butty.
| dmje wrote:
| Sadly I came here to say this
| Lio wrote:
| I keep picturing my mate from Rotherham saying it... :D
| equalsabhi wrote:
| Is this a free to use tool?
|
| I was thinking about whether the GTM should be a figma plugin vs.
| a desktop app. Would love to know the founder's thought process
| on choosing the desktop app route.
| rnavi wrote:
| Excellent point.
| niklauslee wrote:
| For the future, we're looking at web-based version with real-
| time collaboration. But for now, we decided to start with
| desktop. We were also influenced by the "file over app"
| philosophy of Obsidian's founder: https://stephango.com/file-
| over-app.
| keyle wrote:
| What's going on with the url?
| https://konty.app/http://localhost:4321/
|
| Nice app. Loved Balsamiq for years, now I use an outdated version
| of Sketch.
| Sparkenstein wrote:
| Submission url is incorrect. https://konty.app/anything works.
| donatj wrote:
| Are people still using Balsamiq?!
|
| I haven't heard that name in literally forever. I used to use it
| and love it like fifteen years ago when I fancied myself a
| designer and not just a backend dev.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I remember was using an old version around the time just before
| the recent Pandemic. Balsamiq went with the current trend and
| is focusing on subscription/saas model targeting businesses.
| Peldi also seem to have retired or is semi-retired.
| toyg wrote:
| I've not heard that nickname in 20 years! I went to his same
| highschool ( _liceo_ ), he's two years older, and I was
| always pretty amazed by the guy - including how he took what
| was effectively an offensive slur against him ("carrot hair",
| _pel di carota_ ) and claimed it as his nickname. Doing that
| as a teenager takes balls. Great to know he's sorted for
| good, I wish I was (lol)...
| cstuder wrote:
| The desktop version of Balsamiq with a one-time-payment is
| still available, but you have to hunt for it a little.
| ilt wrote:
| I am still using Balsamiq for low-fi wireframes and low-fi
| prototyping. Mostly for desktop application development these
| days. Absolutely love it. Desktop version is still mostly on
| par with its subscription model counterpart, only major
| difference being collaboration thingies.
| berkes wrote:
| I use it a lot.
|
| Figma, penpot etc, aren't for me. I often need something in the
| phase where we're deciding on "what's on the page at all. And
| what screens do we have". Way before there's need for styling
| and layout, which I'll leave to skilled designers.
|
| I need something with libraries. "This is where a map goes" and
| "we have a modal here", and I can just plop in a thing that
| communicates "this is a map of some country" or "a large
| modal". Again, without styling, shadows, animations or even
| proper layout .
|
| And I need something that I can share with coworkers.
|
| A pen and paper (with grids), or whiteboard works best for me,
| but has no libs and is hard to collaborate on (in a remote,
| hybrid environment).
| pqdbr wrote:
| I'll bite: what are people using instead of Balsamiq?
| thuhien2621 wrote:
| I'm a Business Analyst, so I find your tool quite interesting.
| I'll definitely give it a try. However, I would like to ask if
| your product includes sufficient notation to draw according to
| BPMN standards.
| Jolter wrote:
| I think it's not a tool for business analysts but for UI
| designers.
| porker wrote:
| Wrong tool for this - I'd recommend https://bpmn.io/ instead.
| JakaJancar wrote:
| Love it!
|
| I always liked Balsamiq, it really forces you not to obsess about
| the pixels too much, but it was so slow/bloated/buggy, like
| something from the Java on desktop era. This is much smoother!
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| Well, yes, it was from the Flash era. It started in Flash/Flex.
| I love it and used it for a very long time. Huge respect for
| Peldi (Balsamiq founder).
| hermitcrab wrote:
| IIRC the desktop product was rewritten and is still being
| updated.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| For those who love this type of tool, you will also love Kinopio.
| I've no affiliation. https://kinopio.club/
|
| I've seen the founder, /pketh answer questions here on HN.
|
| Update/Edit: The other open-source alternative to Balsamiq-ish
| tool is https://excalidraw.com
| porl wrote:
| No Linux support :'(
| berkes wrote:
| I don't understand these decisions.
|
| This is a collaborative tool. So you cannot say "only 5% of the
| audience is Linux users", but instead you'll rule out any team
| where at least one member is Linux user. Which is a far larger
| group.
|
| If I discount myself, that's 8 of 9 teams and startups I worked
| in last years where we needed wireframing.
|
| But I hope the Konty team has better numbers on this. I presume
| they know more than my anecdotal numbers.
| niklauslee wrote:
| Yes, we'll also consider Linux distributions.
| melicerte wrote:
| In the meantime, wireframesketcher[1] seems to do the same
| than Konty and runs on linux. I'm not related to them in any
| way but use this solution for years and I'm very happy with
| it (paying customer).
|
| [1] https://wireframesketcher.com/
| 8mobile wrote:
| Hi, Balsamiq is one of my favorite products, I have already
| downloaded konty and I stress it a lot. Congratulations for the
| idea and for the product, how did you come up with it? After the
| beta will it be paid? I will give you some feedback soon. Thanks
| niklauslee wrote:
| Thank you for your feedback. I'm thinking of the paid version.
| I would like to offer it much cheaper than balsamiq, probably.
| Additionally, we'll be offering strong discounts for early
| users.
| tyrw wrote:
| Balsamiq is already so cheap. We use it for our business and
| every time it renews I just think they could be getting 5-10x
| what they are. That in turn helps drive a better business and
| product.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Balsamiq is a per month subscrtiption isn't it? Personally,
| I need a tool like this once per year or sometimes even
| less. So if Konty was a one off payment of $20-30 I'd be
| more inclined to purchase.
| quantisan wrote:
| Balsamiq offers a desktop version with a one-time license
| fee at $149 per user
| https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/desktop/
| nprateem wrote:
| You should consider a one time, lifetime payment. As a solo
| dev working on occasional side projects I just wouldn't even
| consider something on a subscription, and $140 (balsamiq's
| one time fee) is about $100 more than I'd pay. My alternative
| is a graphics app I already own.
|
| Follow what Affinity did (cheap and one-time) and you'll sell
| to a lot of people like me who would otherwise give it a
| miss. Save your subscription tiers for businesses needing
| more collaboration, SSO, etc.
|
| With that strategy as well you'll build brand awareness which
| will probably ultimately lead to more sales as those solo
| devs advocate for its use in teams in their day jobs.
| GordonS wrote:
| IIRC, an age ago Balsamiq also offered one-time payments
| for lifetime desktop access.
| quantisan wrote:
| it's still available
| https://balsamiq.com/wireframes/desktop/
| nprateem wrote:
| $140
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Do not give free upgrades for life. You will almost
| certainly regret it. Many people have made this mistake.
| https://successfulsoftware.net/2008/09/08/should-i-give-
| free...
| thinkloop wrote:
| I personally don't trust products with "lifetime" tiers
| will be around in the future, so that would be a negative
| flag for me.
| nreece wrote:
| Looks good!
|
| I wonder if there's a way to combine a simple tool like yours (or
| Balsamiq, which I've used for many years) with generative AI to
| create plain HTML/CSS pages from mockups/wireframes. Figma seems
| bloated, v0 is React/Tailwind only.
| yoz wrote:
| TLDraw Make Real - which was initially thrown together by a
| Figma engineer who added GPT vision to an open source
| whiteboard app - is remarkably good at this.
|
| You can find it at https://makereal.tldraw.com/ but the guide
| there doesn't explain how to get the best out of it. I
| recommend this article by the TLDraw team which goes into some
| of the remarkable tricks you can use, and what people have done
| with it: https://tldraw.substack.com/p/make-real-the-story-so-
| far
| rnavi wrote:
| Make real tdraw is just amazing. Love it.
| niklauslee wrote:
| Yes, we are thinking about integrating with AI!
| fleaaa wrote:
| Fantastic job!
|
| EDIT: No linux support :(
| the_arun wrote:
| Looks really cool & easy to use. In Mac, we cannot delete a frame
| or other objects with "Delete" key after selecting it. We have to
| right click & select "delete".
| niklauslee wrote:
| Oh! I'll check it.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Backspace works for me
| __bax wrote:
| Balsamiq still rocks !
| juliushuijnk wrote:
| If you want to do this kind of thing on your phone, you can try
| my TinyUx: https://www.tinyux.app/
|
| It has a non-standard UX itself, because of the small screen.
| albertgoeswoof wrote:
| So cool!
|
| Do you have an iOS version?
| aloisdg wrote:
| nice! Is it FOSS? Can I contribute to it?
| antisthenes wrote:
| Why is this on a phone?
|
| Are you supposed to draw the UI with your finger or something?
| steve1977 wrote:
| > Don't spend a lot of time and effort creating low-fidelity
| wireframes.
|
| Modern software development in a nutshell
| pcranaway wrote:
| I love how I just downloaded this, and had the wireframe of my
| app's main screen built within 3 minutes of me knowing about this
| piece of software
| steveharman wrote:
| Would be nice to see a "push to Figma" option - where a lot of
| high fidelity work will probably be started, based on wireframes.
| niklauslee wrote:
| Good point. Added to our backlog.
| eashish93 wrote:
| I like it, it's better than other apps. Reason is it present you
| a list of all components of left sidebar so we don't have to
| think of creating it from scratch. Just drag and drop and your
| work is done.
| monkeydust wrote:
| This is cool, fan of Balsamiq. What I would really like is some
| alignment/snap feature similar to what you have in MS power point
| when you put some shapes together and it overlays some lines to
| help with spacing and gaps.
| pabe wrote:
| Looks nice, like excalidraw fine tuned for wireframes. However,
| I'm on Linux so I'm not able to use the app.
| aloisdg wrote:
| love excalidraw btw
| melicerte wrote:
| wireframesketcher[1] seems to do the same than Konty and runs
| on linux. I'm not related to them in any way but use this
| solution for years and I'm very happy with it (paying
| customer).
|
| [1] https://wireframesketcher.com/
| saagarjha wrote:
| Psst...you have a typo on one of the images, where it says
| "Delete from Shopping Card" when it should probably say "Delete
| from Shopping _Cart_ ".
| probablybetter wrote:
| no Linux build? (appimage or snap etc? not expecting distro
| support for proprietary small-shop software)
| olivierduval wrote:
| Something always bothered me: why using "sketch-like hand-drawn
| pencil" like style for that kind of tools ?
|
| I understand that "wireframing" is some kind of "brainstorming"
| tool, so it is used with a pencil and a whiteboard in a meeting
| room and require to draw/erase fast iteratively... so it's the
| "right" tool for this job...
|
| But as soon as you use a computer instead of a pencil, why not
| have a "realistic" and "clean" look instead of this kind of
| quick-and-dirty sketch-like style? It's an honest question
|
| Is it because designers are most used to this style? Is it
| because it make more clearly appear the essential points (for
| example: a list) and avoid discussion like "is this text exactly
| in this color ?"
| olivierduval wrote:
| (to be honest, I find this "pencil-like" look a bit like MS
| Comics for fonts, ugly and unprofessional... so I really don't
| understand why designer tool use it so much)
| toyg wrote:
| Anybody who's ever been in a few meetings that try to put
| together stakeholders, designers, and developers, know how it
| will inevitably descend in painful back and forth about a
| shade of hue or an icon size. People get distracted by colors
| and graphics, and fail to provide actual feedback on
| functionality and layouting - which are the hardest bits to
| change later.
|
| The point of this style is to communicate that it's a rough
| draft, so that people focus on the essential implementation
| and functionality requirements, the hard stuff. It's easy to
| give it a lick of paint later. (It also keeps expectations
| low, so that the final result will feel like you're
| overdelivering. But that's just bonus.)
| olivierduval wrote:
| For those "downvoting" this comment, please: I wrote it right
| after my initial post, before any answer, to make my initial
| post clearer. I certainly should have added this to the main
| post.
|
| Now that I have all these answers, I understand better. But
| cant delete or modify this comment. So sadly it's here for
| eternity :-(
|
| Thanks a lot for your insightfull comments to the original
| post. Actually, I now think that I will use these method to
| help getting more feedback from users
| ramraj07 wrote:
| If I draw something in balsamiq, I'm typically "forgiven" for
| how basic the design looks. Try and do the same in let's say MS
| paint and you could be called unprofessional and lazy. But this
| style seems to communicate strongly that this is a basic
| barebones wireframe.
|
| Honestly it also looks better.
| estsauver wrote:
| The reason that I've heard used repeatedly is that a shocking
| percentage of folks who aren't Technology producers can't
| separate visual quality from "doneness" of a project. If you
| show some business folks something that looks like it works,
| they'll mentally update the project to "Nearly done!" and then
| everything else after that becomes "Unreasonable delays."
| dspillett wrote:
| This is unfortunately very true. You also have to be very
| careful with word/phrase choice in discussion about future
| work: people often hear "what we could do, is..." as "there
| is already a full feature that allows you to configure the
| tool to do...".
|
| You really have to drill home that ideas and possibilities
| are just that, and not concrete features that they could
| start using tomorrow.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Why is this unfortunate? If it weren't true and people
| could separate the things, would we really be better off?
|
| I ask because this guy s a common lament, but I've never
| figured out why. It shouldn't be a surprise or (to me)
| disappointment that the fidelity of a communication also
| carries signal about the status.
| mionhe wrote:
| Unfortunate because it's relatively easy now to mock-up
| the pretty part well enough to be mistaken for the real
| thing. Which people who don't have experience in this
| field then do, and get often get confused or upset even.
|
| Example of this from another industry: working in
| manufacturing, a client wouldn't listen to our
| explanations about why their part wasn't ready to be
| molded in plastic. (lot's of design issues that would
| make it impossible to get out of the mold or lead to
| extreme cosmetic imperfections). To prove their point
| that their part designs were ready, they held up a 3d
| print of their part and said, "See? It's right here! You
| just have to do this!" This led to a half hour of
| answering questions before they started to understand
| that the two fabrication processes were very different
| and had different requirements.
|
| I think the unfortunate part is really the time you have
| to sink into helping someone understand that's often
| unpaid, in my experience.
| duggan wrote:
| This is also what I've heard and experienced.
|
| Actually I don't think "technology producers" are entirely
| excluded from this bias either. I've assumed more complexity
| than there was in reality (possibly due to my background in
| infrastructure and backend), but other developers I've worked
| with certainly fall more into the trap of "there's a UI? now
| it's just a simple matter of CRUD."
| Lio wrote:
| I think Kathy Sierra used to wrote about this quite a bit.
| She's actually referenced by Balsamiq I think.
| dmje wrote:
| I presented a wireframe to a curator at The Science Museum
| once years ago - even after lots of "please bear in mind this
| is just a prototype" type disclaimers, his first response was
| "surely it'll have more colour and pictures than this?".
|
| So. Yeh.
| appendix-rock wrote:
| Yes. This is precisely it. There aren't two sides to this,
| just people that haven't themselves experienced this
| absolutely inevitability. These sorts of inexact-looking
| tools are worth their weight in gold for that reason alone.
| viraptor wrote:
| While this is likely true for designs, I believe there's more
| to it. I switched from straight to cartoon lines for my
| architecture / planning diagrams and suddenly started getting
| more unprompted comments about how they're clear and
| approachable.
|
| Personally I also prefer the hand-drawn style, but can't put
| my finger on why. There's something about the uneven lines
| filling out the space better, while still defining the shapes
| well.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| I think you're pointing to the positive case of the same
| effect, which is that people use "hints" from the level of
| detail of something to determine the level at which they
| ought to inspect something.
|
| Lower fidelity puts the viewer in a more conceptual mode of
| assessment, and there they can more easily perceive the
| clearness/approachability of your concepts.
| mhuffman wrote:
| I have had prospective clients do it from non-interactive
| graphic mock-ups -- just pictures! They assumed that was the
| hard part and just "wiring up the buttons" would be a short
| simple task. Those were frustrating discussions.
| com wrote:
| Devil's advocate ... why shouldn't this be true? That's how
| HyperCard worked, right?
| ted_dunning wrote:
| Well, sure. If all you want is buttons.
|
| But if you want reasonable portability of the interface
| across different devices, and scale, and connection
| quality there's more to do.
|
| Even just getting an interface that responds cleanly to
| resizing can be trickier than it looks because what is
| important changes as aspect and scale change. How you
| present things may categorically change.
|
| And this doesn't even start on talking about how to get
| the backend to where it matches the implied functionality
| of the front end.
| mhuffman wrote:
| In this particular case, there were user accounts,
| listings of items per user, calculators of various sort,
| multiple API integrations, and on and on. They understood
| by the end of the discussion, but seeing an image of
| something that looked complete was enough to trick their
| mind into thinking a lot of development work had occurred
| when, in fact, none had occurred. Only preliminary
| graphic design had occurred. This was earlier in my
| career. I typically use wire-frames or zoomed-in detail
| images now along with starting the discussion by letting
| them know that these are just graphic ideas, there has
| been no development yet, we are just at the stage that we
| want to be sure we are matching their vision.
| mguerville wrote:
| And criticize the colors, shading, exact sizes of UI
| elements, etc. instead of the underlying holistic UX
| netghost wrote:
| A slightly different take.
|
| If everything is either an obvious sketch, or pixel perfect
| you can get decent feedback, but a design that is just a
| little off in jarring ways will distract people from the
| functionality or design intention.
| Groxx wrote:
| There is definitely this, but also: if it looks "refined",
| people start getting attached to what they see, and it
| affects how they react to the final product.
|
| Any change from that haphazard throwaway _with nice colors_
| is suddenly a change they have opinions about, because it
| feels like _a change_.
|
| If you show them something that's obviously not what will
| ship, they don't get as attached.
|
| ---
|
| This is also partly a "most people don't understand the
| design process" thing, and just how much reworking and
| restarting is generally necessary to get an actually-good end
| result. If they see hundreds of mockups (or even sketches),
| they'll wonder why you haven't made hundreds of products,
| rather than those being merely tools used to think along the
| way.
| gadders wrote:
| I remember in the early 00's this book suggested literally
| prototyping on paper first. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paper-
| Prototyping-Interfaces-Intera...
|
| I think this was then expanded to be "paper-looking".
|
| But yes, for the reasons you state.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| I almost got burned out from this, this year. Never again
| will I use clean and production-ready assets for prototypes
| submitted to decision makers.
| niklauslee wrote:
| Psychologically reduces obsession with the perfect drawing.
| Beretta_Vexee wrote:
| This style says 'it's a draft' 'it's an idea'. This is very
| important for communication within the team. It also allows you
| to concentrate on the essential points and not on the details
| (I don't like this font, the centring isn't perfect, etc.).
|
| To my great surprise, even for training courses, this style
| encourages questions and interaction with the students. There's
| a whiteboard feel to it which suggests that the presentation
| isn't set in stone.
| specialist wrote:
| Right. The more polished a rendering is, the more people are
| emotionally attached to it. Keeping it rough enables
| brainstorming, whatifs, etc.
|
| Ages ago, when CAD was new, architects would show customers
| tracings (of plots). For all the same reasons.
|
| The practice was so common that my buddy (also an architect)
| created a "hand plot" driver for AutoCAD. "Messy" hand drawn
| look instead of precise line work. The driver was huge
| popular.
| ashildr wrote:
| It's an abstraction that makes people focus on the part that is
| relevant for the discussion at hand, and not on implementation
| details.
| rpastuszak wrote:
| A) Make it easier to focus on the core aspects of the problems
| instead of obsessing with details (applies to both designers
| and "reviewers")
|
| B) An "unfinished" messy design is an invitation for critical
| feedback. If you give people something that looks too polished,
| they might be afraid that they'll break it, that they don't
| understand it, that they can't give feedback that is "good
| enough".
|
| In short: if it looks like a toy people will play with it.
|
| * C) The reason many of these tools look like Balsamiq has more
| to do with the tech of the late 00s/early 10s. This specific
| style of vector art was pretty easy to achieve in Flash.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| I usually dont use wireframes like this but one benefit is that
| it clearly communicates "this is NOT a finished design". Way to
| many times you bring a figma/mvp to get feedback on the "big
| picture" like the user flow etc but people get stuck on "the
| margin on that box is wrong" or "can we use another font?" when
| they see a design that looks like a "finished" product. You
| dont have that issue with wireframes.
| veenified wrote:
| Sometimes the pixel perfect details don't matter for a use
| case, so why set the hi-fi expectation for both the designer
| and developer. The designer can get caught up in choosing
| colors and pixel-perfect layout, and similarly the developer
| implementing on that design might unnecessary time attempting
| to match the hi-fi design.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Because the final product will require tons of details to have
| been thought through, which can quickly become bike-shedding
| derailments. How many times have you had to say "this is just
| example styling--we can tweak it later"? The hand drawn sketch
| conveys that implicitly.
| codegeek wrote:
| Exactly. I feel the same way. After lot of research, I settled
| on Whimsical for doing mockups/wireframes. Good Balance between
| Simplicity and Power. Only complain is clickable prototyping
| which is not available. If they add that, I would never leave
| Whimsical for prototyping.
| shagie wrote:
| > Something always bothered me: why using "sketch-like hand-
| drawn pencil" like style for that kind of tools ?
|
| https://napkinlaf.sourceforge.net (one of my favorites from
| back in the day)
|
| > The Napkin Look & Feel is a pluggable Java look and feel that
| looks like it was scrawled on a napkin. You can use it to make
| provisional work actually look provisional, or just for fun. It
| is released under a BSD-style license
|
| > The idea is to try to develop a look and feel that can be
| used in Java applications that looks informal and provisional,
| yet be fully functional for development. Often when people see
| a GUI mock-up, or a complete GUI without full functionality,
| they assume that the code behind it is working. While this can
| be used to sleazy advantage, it can also convince people who
| ought to know better (like your managers) that you are already
| done when you have just barely begun, or when only parts are
| complete. No matter how much you speak to their rational side,
| the emotional response still says "Done!". Which after a while
| leads to a later question: "That was done months ago! What are
| they doing? Playing Quake?" A good article on this is Joel on
| Software's "The Iceberg Secret, Revealed".
|
| ... and that's the place that I remember where to find this
| blog post:
|
| Don't make the Demo look Done -
| https://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/...
|
| > When we show a work-in-progress (like an alpha release) to
| the public, press, a client, or boss... we're setting their
| expectations. And we can do it one of three ways: dazzle them
| with a polished mock-up, show them something that matches the
| reality of the project status, or stress them out by showing
| almost nothing and asking them to take it "on faith" that
| you're on track.
|
| > The bottom line: How 'done' something looks should match how
| 'done' something is.
|
| > Every software developer has experienced this many times in
| their career. But desktop publishing tools lead to the same
| headache for tech writers--if you show someone a rough draft
| that's perfectly fonted and formatted, they see it as more done
| than you'd like. We need a match between where we are and where
| others perceive we are.
|
| The infographic in this post (
| https://headrush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/feedbackim...
| ) is especially important because the how it looks changes what
| type of feedback you get.
|
| I had a project where I grabbed the stylesheet and header from
| another similar project while working on it... and spent a week
| discussing with management about what color blue it should be
| when the questions I needed answering were "does this page flow
| make sense?"
| mitchbob wrote:
| One of the most valuable things you can do with early
| prototypes is have prospective users try them, to see whether
| they're understandable and meet users' needs. When a prototype
| looks unfinished, users understand that it can be changed, and
| you can collaborate with them and explore ideas for making the
| prototype better.
| mkarliner wrote:
| Very nice. I've been looking for a replacement hand drawn tool
| for ages.
| dewey wrote:
| The submitted url links to this, still works but just fyi:
|
| https://konty.app/http://localhost:4321/
| niklauslee wrote:
| Oops! Is there any way to fix it? I can't find edit button.
| itslennysfault wrote:
| It's weird everything after the slash seems to be ignored. You
| can type anything and it still goes to the home page. funky.
| trenchgun wrote:
| Not sure if it would be out of scope to have support for PlantUML
| etc programmatic generation
| aloisdg wrote:
| nice! Is it FOSS? Can I contribute to it?
| wiradikusuma wrote:
| FYI in Indonesian slang* it means penis.
|
| * which is also a slang for another slang. Inception!
| patafemma wrote:
| Well done! Basic functionality feels pretty smooth and polished.
| One thing that I found myself very quickly missing: being able to
| snap shapes to each other or to the grid.
| pentagrama wrote:
| This is great. Let you know that your blog seems that doesn't
| support RSS. I will like to follow the project there.
|
| https://konty.app/blog/
| mdaniel wrote:
| and while fixing that: this markup is not helping
| <link rel="canonical" href="http://localhost:4321/blog/">
| wusel wrote:
| I thought the connecting arrows were bugged at first, then I
| realized it's a genius implementation. This alone makes me want
| to use this more than Figjam.
| chrisvalleybay wrote:
| Just a question; I'm seeing so many tools pop up with these kinds
| of advanced whiteboard functionality, all the tools on the top
| and the tool palettes on the right. Is there a library or
| something that's being used to implement all of this? They all
| look the same.
|
| Product looks good, though! Congrats!
| tchock23 wrote:
| This is great - thanks for making/sharing it!
|
| I use (and like) Moqups, but the lo-fi nature of Konty is really
| nice. Seems very easy to use and responsive so far.
| jksmith wrote:
| Dig it. I use Balsamiq all the time. Some challenges when using
| Wine, so I have to open a cringey Klaus Schwab windows machine.
| Would be great if this app showed Linux some love.
| hexfish wrote:
| > a cringey Klaus Schwab windows machine
|
| Say what? haha
| warthog wrote:
| This looks amazing
| daverobbins1 wrote:
| Looks great. Can we get this on homebrew?
| replete wrote:
| Gomockingbird was the best at this (for my purposes), but they
| decommissioned and didn't open source it like they said they
| would.
|
| Balsamiq was next best and I use it still, but has a cumbersome
| user interface with enough friction that it gets in the way.
|
| I tried using Excalidraw for a while, for my dislike of using
| Balsamiq, but for wireframing even with libraries it was too
| fiddly.
|
| Just tried out Konty and it feels like an upgrade to Balsamiq for
| sure, and is clearly inspired by Excalidraw. Great work
| TuringNYC wrote:
| I see the company is based in Asia. I highly recommend
| considering some branding feedback from westerners. The name of
| the app will raise eyebrows for many.
| febeling wrote:
| What are the eyebrow raising connotations you have?
| jnsie wrote:
| Replace an o with a u
| esafak wrote:
| It sounds like cunty (adjective) or cuntie (diminutive).
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obagb7RQeYo
| DonnyV wrote:
| Looking into how this is built. I see they use something called
| Squirrel.Window for managing installs. I can't believe I've never
| heard of this until now!
| https://github.com/Squirrel/Squirrel.Windows.
|
| Fastest loading electron app I've ever seen.
|
| As a long time user of Ballsamiq. This is FANTASTIC!! Everything
| is super smooth, nice drawing styling, well thought out.
|
| My only problem with Ballsamiq Desktop was the price. I just
| don't use it enough to pay $150 for 1 license. Something like $60
| for desktop would be better.
|
| Good luck with the business. I will definitely be using your app.
|
| P.S. I just noticed it groups things automatically....HOLY
| SMOKES!
|
| P.S. 2 As a map user. When switching to the pan tool (hand). The
| scrolling up/down should zoom in/out.
|
| P.S. 3 It definitely needs a pdf export option
| groby_b wrote:
| "Please download a random binary from a place that doesn't even
| charge for the binary and seems to be set up yesterday" is...
| raising my hairs.
|
| I'm sure odds are this actually isn't malware, but - I'd think
| about how to address that fear.
| aosaigh wrote:
| This is great. I'm a regular Balsamiq user but prefer the look-
| and-feel and subtle aesthetic differences in Konty. I'd love some
| sort of commenting or call-out system on drawings. The "stickies"
| work well in some cases, but I regularly find that I need to draw
| attention to certain parts of a design and don't want to have to
| manually create an arrow with a sticky, or an arrow with text
| etc.
|
| Also, a small frustration, but when deleting items I reach for
| "del" on the keyboard, which isn't implemented here ("backspace"
| works though).
| ted_dunning wrote:
| This tool is distressingly delicate.
|
| open text. type something. pop up a triangle. modal deadlock.
| CR-MX wrote:
| This is great! congratulations
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-12 23:01 UTC)