Figma Sites: innovation or exploitation?
How every designer’s favorite app is turning design dreams into code nightmares.Image by authorIf you’re a Figma fanatic, you’ve probably heard about the launch of Figma Sites — a new tool that promises to let designers create and publish fully interactive websites directly from the platform.At first glance, it sounds revolutionary. No need to hand off Figma files to a developer or convert them into Framer or Webflow layouts. Just click a few buttons and — boom — instant websites. But if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to dig into the code it produces. And, not surprisingly, it’s a mess — a sea of <div> and <span> tags and random classes with zero regard for semantic structure.Screenshot of code generated by Figma Sites.For those who don’t know, semantics in code means using HTML elements that clearly describe their purpose — like <header> for page headers, <section> for content sections, and <article> for standalone content.Proper class structures are just as crucial — they should be meaningful, consistent, and follow naming conventions that make the code readable and maintainable.For example, instead of using class="css-z91rnx" which is the kind of autogenerated gibberish Figma Sites spits out, it should be something like class="header-main" or class="btn-primary" to clearly convey the element’s purpose and maintain consistency across the project.And good code isn’t just about neatness. It’s essential for accessibility. Semantic elements like <nav> and <button> aren’t just for show — they help screen readers and assistive technology navigate the page, making it usable for everyone.Then there’s SEO. Search engines rely on semantic structure to properly index content. If your site is a sea of <div> tags with meaningless classes, search engines struggle to understand the hierarchy and relevance of your content. That means your Figma site might look good but rank like garbage.But let’s be real — the biggest red flag here is how Figma Sites feels like another rushed-to-market product. It’s yet another low-code, no-code tool jumping on the “vibe coding” bandwagon — prioritizing drag-and-drop ease over actual code quality. It’s like they’re cashing in on the trend without caring about what’s under the hood.And that’s a problem. I get that a lot of new designers don’t know how to assess front-end code, but Figma should know better.This points to one of two things — either Figma is incompetent, or they’re deliberately misleading designers into thinking this is publishable code. And I’d like to believe a company like Figma isn’t incompetent, which leaves us with the second option — they’re selling a promise that doesn’t deliver.Don’t get me wrong — it does produce code, just in the most rudimentary way possible. By “deliver,” I mean quality code that actually aligns with the standards they claim to uphold.I’m willing to give Figma the benefit of the doubt and assume they have internal developers working on this tool who know what bad code looks like. So maybe Sites was rushed out the door to meet a deadline, even though it wasn’t ready.To be fair, Figma does say Sites is in open beta, but there’s a big difference between a beta release and convincing people it’s nearly production-ready — and Sites is nowhere close to delivering quality websites.But if that’s the case, why not just admit it’s more of a work in progress than something shippable? Oh right, because that would hurt the bottom line. And at the end of the day, that’s what it’s always about.Figma Config 2025Figma Sites, as it stands, is nothing more than a glorified prototyping tool — because no one with an ounce of dignity would launch a site, even a basic landing page, using such atrocious code.But prototyping is what Figma already does best — it’s the platform’s core function. So unless they plan to overhaul Sites, it’s just another excuse to squeeze more money out thier users. Classic corporate move.But it’s not all doom and gloom— Figma just gave us a masterclass in what not to do. If they’re serious about empowering designers to create real websites, there’s a right way to do it.And here’s the kicker — we, as designers, have the power to push them to deliver a tool that actually lives up to the hype. But that means dropping the fanboy mentality and critiquing these features with the same scrutiny we’d apply to our own work.Instead of selling a half-baked solution, Figma could invest in making Sites a real, production-ready tool that generates semantic, accessible, and SEO-friendly code. That would be a game changer — a tool that not only simplifies the design-to-code workflow but actually upholds the standards that matter.Until then, if you care about how your work performs beyond the Figma canvas, it might be time to keep a developer on speed dial. Or better yet, learn some basic front-end code yourself. Because knowing how to spot bad code is the first step in demanding better from companies like Figma.Don’t miss out! Join my email list and receive the latest content.Figma Sites: innovation or exploitation? was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
#figma #sites #innovation #exploitation
Figma Sites: innovation or exploitation?
How every designer’s favorite app is turning design dreams into code nightmares.Image by authorIf you’re a Figma fanatic, you’ve probably heard about the launch of Figma Sites — a new tool that promises to let designers create and publish fully interactive websites directly from the platform.At first glance, it sounds revolutionary. No need to hand off Figma files to a developer or convert them into Framer or Webflow layouts. Just click a few buttons and — boom — instant websites. But if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to dig into the code it produces. And, not surprisingly, it’s a mess — a sea of <div> and <span> tags and random classes with zero regard for semantic structure.Screenshot of code generated by Figma Sites.For those who don’t know, semantics in code means using HTML elements that clearly describe their purpose — like <header> for page headers, <section> for content sections, and <article> for standalone content.Proper class structures are just as crucial — they should be meaningful, consistent, and follow naming conventions that make the code readable and maintainable.For example, instead of using class="css-z91rnx" which is the kind of autogenerated gibberish Figma Sites spits out, it should be something like class="header-main" or class="btn-primary" to clearly convey the element’s purpose and maintain consistency across the project.And good code isn’t just about neatness. It’s essential for accessibility. Semantic elements like <nav> and <button> aren’t just for show — they help screen readers and assistive technology navigate the page, making it usable for everyone.Then there’s SEO. Search engines rely on semantic structure to properly index content. If your site is a sea of <div> tags with meaningless classes, search engines struggle to understand the hierarchy and relevance of your content. That means your Figma site might look good but rank like garbage.But let’s be real — the biggest red flag here is how Figma Sites feels like another rushed-to-market product. It’s yet another low-code, no-code tool jumping on the “vibe coding” bandwagon — prioritizing drag-and-drop ease over actual code quality. It’s like they’re cashing in on the trend without caring about what’s under the hood.And that’s a problem. I get that a lot of new designers don’t know how to assess front-end code, but Figma should know better.This points to one of two things — either Figma is incompetent, or they’re deliberately misleading designers into thinking this is publishable code. And I’d like to believe a company like Figma isn’t incompetent, which leaves us with the second option — they’re selling a promise that doesn’t deliver.Don’t get me wrong — it does produce code, just in the most rudimentary way possible. By “deliver,” I mean quality code that actually aligns with the standards they claim to uphold.I’m willing to give Figma the benefit of the doubt and assume they have internal developers working on this tool who know what bad code looks like. So maybe Sites was rushed out the door to meet a deadline, even though it wasn’t ready.To be fair, Figma does say Sites is in open beta, but there’s a big difference between a beta release and convincing people it’s nearly production-ready — and Sites is nowhere close to delivering quality websites.But if that’s the case, why not just admit it’s more of a work in progress than something shippable? Oh right, because that would hurt the bottom line. And at the end of the day, that’s what it’s always about.Figma Config 2025Figma Sites, as it stands, is nothing more than a glorified prototyping tool — because no one with an ounce of dignity would launch a site, even a basic landing page, using such atrocious code.But prototyping is what Figma already does best — it’s the platform’s core function. So unless they plan to overhaul Sites, it’s just another excuse to squeeze more money out thier users. Classic corporate move.But it’s not all doom and gloom— Figma just gave us a masterclass in what not to do. If they’re serious about empowering designers to create real websites, there’s a right way to do it.And here’s the kicker — we, as designers, have the power to push them to deliver a tool that actually lives up to the hype. But that means dropping the fanboy mentality and critiquing these features with the same scrutiny we’d apply to our own work.Instead of selling a half-baked solution, Figma could invest in making Sites a real, production-ready tool that generates semantic, accessible, and SEO-friendly code. That would be a game changer — a tool that not only simplifies the design-to-code workflow but actually upholds the standards that matter.Until then, if you care about how your work performs beyond the Figma canvas, it might be time to keep a developer on speed dial. Or better yet, learn some basic front-end code yourself. Because knowing how to spot bad code is the first step in demanding better from companies like Figma.Don’t miss out! Join my email list and receive the latest content.Figma Sites: innovation or exploitation? was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
#figma #sites #innovation #exploitation
·66 Views