What if your favorite design tool could also build websites? That’s the bold promise Figma makes with its new website creation feature, a move that has sparked both excitement and skepticism among its user base. By integrating website design and publishing directly into its platform, Figma aims to streamline workflows and eliminate the need for third-party tools. But is this innovation a fantastic option or just another rushed attempt to ride the no-code wave? With its reliance on heavy structures and limited customization, some argue Figma’s latest offering sacrifices professional-grade functionality for convenience. In this Figma Sites review explore whether Figma’s foray into web creation lives up to its potential—or falls short of its competitors like Webflow and Framer.
This review by Kevin Powell, dives into the strengths and shortcomings of Figma Sites website creation feature, addressing critical aspects like accessibility challenges, design flexibility, and competitive positioning. You’ll discover how Figma’s tool stacks up against industry leaders, why its reliance on JavaScript might raise eyebrows, and whether its convenience outweighs its limitations. Whether you’re a designer intrigued by the idea of an all-in-one platform or a developer seeking robust tools, this exploration will help you decide if Figma’s new feature deserves a place in your workflow—or if it’s better left on the sidelines. Sometimes, innovation isn’t about what’s added, but what’s missing.
Figma’s Website Builder Overview
TL;DR Key Takeaways :
- Figma has introduced a website creation feature, allowing users to design and publish websites directly within the platform, targeting the no-code website builder market.
- Figma Sites was released in open beta at Config 2025. It is currently available on all paid plans, with a limited Starter plan experience coming soon
- The tool offers responsive design and page linking but lacks advanced customization options like semantic HTML elements, CSS grid, and flexbox.
- Critics highlight technical and accessibility challenges, including reliance on `
` elements, redundant ARIA labels, and JavaScript dependency, which impact SEO, performance, and usability.
- Figma Sites faces strong competition from platforms like Webflow, Framer, and PenPot, which offer more robust features, semantic structure, and greater design flexibility.
- User reception has been mixed, with concerns about the tool’s rushed development and limited functionality, potentially hindering its adoption in the competitive market.
Website Creation in Figma: A Convenient but Limited Start
Figma’s website creation tool is available exclusively to paid users, offering a streamlined process for designing and publishing websites. The feature supports responsive design and page linking, making it particularly appealing to designers already familiar with Figma’s interface. By eliminating the need for third-party tools, Figma seeks to save users time and effort, creating a more cohesive workflow.
Despite these advantages, the tool’s limitations are evident. While it simplifies the creation process, it lacks advanced customization options and control over HTML elements. For instance, users cannot define semantic elements such as headings, sections, or navigation, which are essential for building structured and accessible websites. This limitation significantly reduces its appeal to professional developers who require more robust tools for their projects. Additionally, the absence of CSS grid and flexbox integration restricts design flexibility, leaving users with fewer options to create complex layouts.
Technical and Accessibility Challenges
One of the most significant criticisms of Figma’s website creation feature is its reliance on elements for structuring websites. This approach compromises semantic integrity, which is crucial for search engine optimization (SEO) and accessibility. Websites built using this tool may struggle to meet web standards, potentially alienating users who rely on assistive technologies.
Accessibility issues extend beyond semantic concerns. For example, redundant ARIA labels can cause screen readers to repeat content unnecessarily, creating a frustrating experience for visually impaired users. Furthermore, Figma’s reliance on JavaScript for basic interactions, such as hover effects and link navigation, raises performance and compatibility concerns. These choices can lead to slower load times and inconsistent behavior across devices, further limiting the tool’s usability. Such challenges highlight the need for Figma to prioritize accessibility and performance to make its tool more inclusive and reliable.
Figma Sites Review
Browse through more resources below from our in-depth content covering more areas on AI coding.
How Figma Stacks Up Against Competitors
Figma’s entry into the no-code website builder market places it in direct competition with established platforms like Webflow, Framer, and PenPot. These competitors offer more advanced features and greater flexibility, making them better suited for creating professional-grade websites.
- Webflow: Renowned for its semantic output and extensive customization options, Webflow allows users to define headings, sections, and navigation elements, making sure compliance with web standards. Its robust tools make it a favorite among developers and designers alike.
- Framer: Known for its ability to deliver polished, responsive designs with minimal effort, Framer appeals to designers seeking efficiency without compromising quality. Its intuitive interface and advanced design capabilities set it apart.
- PenPot: As an open source alternative, PenPot aligns closely with CSS standards and supports advanced layout tools like grid and flexbox. This flexibility caters to both developers and designers, offering greater control over design and structure.
In comparison, Figma Sites lack of semantic structure and advanced customization tools makes it less competitive. The absence of features like CSS grid and flexbox further limits its appeal to users who prioritize design precision and professional-grade output.
Execution and User Perception
The reception of Figma’s website creation feature has been mixed. While some users appreciate the convenience of designing and publishing websites within a single platform, others view the tool as an incomplete product. Many believe it was rushed to market to capitalize on the growing no-code trend, resulting in a lack of polish and functionality.
The tool’s reliance on JavaScript for fundamental interactions exacerbates these concerns. By prioritizing ease of use over robust functionality, Figma risks alienating professional developers and accessibility advocates. These shortcomings highlight the need for more comprehensive development and greater user control to make the tool viable for a broader audience. Without addressing these issues, Figma’s website creation feature may struggle to gain traction in a competitive market.
Exploring Alternative Tools
For users seeking a more comprehensive solution, several alternatives outperform Figma Sites in key areas:
- Webflow: Offers unmatched control over HTML and CSS, making it ideal for creating semantically rich and accessible websites. Its advanced features cater to both beginners and professionals.
- Framer: Simplifies the process of building responsive designs while maintaining high-quality output. Its focus on user-friendly design tools makes it a strong contender in the no-code space.
- PenPot: Provides advanced layout tools and open source flexibility, catering to developers and designers who require greater control over their projects. Its adherence to CSS standards ensures high-quality results.
These platforms not only address the limitations of Figma’s tool but also set a higher standard for no-code website creation. Their emphasis on semantic structure, accessibility, and customization makes them more appealing to a diverse range of users.
Media Credit: Kevin Powell
Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our
.
Credit: Source link