Roast the landing page for developer tool
I've never been a big fan of unit testing. I've felt it's only popular because better ways of testing are too challenging. End-to-end testing would provide much better value because the safety net it provides is much more densely woven. I was very enthusiastic about the new tools in the E2E space, however, after using them I had to realize these are still not what the industry needs.
This is why I started working on App Actions the E2E testing tool I'd really want to use.
It is a developer-first no-code testing tool: it enables you to write tests by recording, while the output is not stored in a walled garden like other no-code tools do.
Instead, the tests are automatically saved to your project directory, letting you store it in git as it should be.
Please tell me your honest feedback about my landing page: appactions.com
Ty!
Your landing page is gorgeous. One of the best I've seen and I've been a website designer for a while now. Nice work.
The only constructive criticism I have is that you should have a CTA button for the "get started" section somewhere either above or below the newsletter sign up depending on which action is more important to you. The only place I could find to move to the next step and start using the tool was via the top menu nav.
Bravo, looks super cool.
Great catch, thank you for this! For now, the newsletter signup is the priority, we probably have to do something to express that.
Probably I'll add that CTA to the docs, so when people click the get started, they also see a nudge to do the other CTA.
Good stuff, thanks again!
If you have time I'd love your thoughts on my landing page: https://timecheck.us thanks! And upvote if poss :) https://www.indiehackers.com/post/launched-in-beta-timecheck-an-app-for-imessage-that-compares-the-availability-of-everyone-in-a-group-chat-to-find-times-when-all-are-free-4d22721cdd
Hey Miklos,
I think your landing page looks great, design-wise. The animated image showing how it works is very clear.
My doubts are more about the tool itself. If it's an E2E testing tool, why is for React only? When you test a web page simulating user actions, the underlying framework used to render the page should be irrelevant.
Also it's not clear to me if the tool is free or paid, open or closed source. There are quite a few open source tools available to record tests.
Hope this helps
Hi Mirko,
Fair point, we also believe implementation details should be irrelevant!
However, being React-only was a conscious decision for this two reasons:
Our testing API is using React's VDOM instead of the normal DOM. This way, we can support apps on any platform (as long as the app is written in React ofc). All of our competitors are locked in the browser, while we are able to test React Native, react-three-fiber (3D/AR/VR), and many other types of apps.
We could use the normal DOM as a fallback since VDOM is very similar, but decided not to do that for now. It might happen in the future, but for now, we wanted to narrow the scope. We want to deliver a truly delightful experience to our customers, and the best way to do that is to focus our attention on a part of the market that we know the most, which is React.
I hope this clarifies your question!
Makes sense. You could actually highlight that you support both React in the browser and React Native, that's a selling point. I guess that's implicit in "all React renderers", but it may not be immediately obvious to everybody.
It's worded like that because the MVP only runs in the browser for now. We can support any crazy renderers today, as long as the host platform is the browser. We are planning to add RN support in the second half of the year.