"Brackets is built using HTML, CSS and JavaScript. If you can code in Brackets, you can code on Brackets."
"WORKS WITH YOUR BROWSER"
Spent 5 seconds skimming the page up and down for a "Try It" or "Get Started" link, but only found "Check It Out". After 3 seconds of reading, I re-interpreted "Check-Out" as in the source code sense. Re-scanned the page, no other obvious demo headings, so I closed the tab.
Despite the page's high level of visual polish, it completely failed at explaining to me what the app was and how I should go about getting it.
For me, this is how it happened—I looked at the screenshot and liked how it looked then read the About Brackets blurb to get a good idea. Finally, I found a Mac binary easy enough from the Check It Out part.
Obviously, both these experiences are quite different and both would lead someone to make a certain conclusion about the website. Which is 'correct' then?
Personally, I just hope some of the neat features (Inline CSS editing) appears in Sublime Text 2.
"FOR THE WEB, BY THE WEB"
"Brackets is built using HTML, CSS and JavaScript. If you can code in Brackets, you can code on Brackets."
"WORKS WITH YOUR BROWSER"
Spent 5 seconds skimming the page up and down for a "Try It" or "Get Started" link, but only found "Check It Out". After 3 seconds of reading, I re-interpreted "Check-Out" as in the source code sense. Re-scanned the page, no other obvious demo headings, so I closed the tab.
Despite the page's high level of visual polish, it completely failed at explaining to me what the app was and how I should go about getting it.