Improve landing page content #1447
Description
Currently https://graphite.rs claims Graphite is "Redefining state‑of‑the‑art graphics editing", despite only having graphics editing features that have been standard in tools such as GIMP, Inkscape, Krita, or Photoshop for decades. Whilst it does have some interesting features such as a mandelbrot renderer, this is not useful for actual graphics editing. Perhaps it would be clearer to write "Work in progress open-source graphics editor for the web"?
Below it states that Graphite provides a "fully nondestructive editing experience". This is not true, as most tools such as the path tool overwrite existing data. Perhaps it would be better to state that Graphite "is powered by an incredibly complex node execution system that heavily utilises generics, fused with a fragile tool system providing an unstable, partially non-destructive editing experience."
The screenshots below may at first glance appear to all be of the current editor. Only after a careful reading of the caption is it apparent that the second and third images are mockups. In order to reduce confusion, these mockups should be clearly differentiated from the screenshot that appears first, perhaps by writing "Mockup" in large text on the image.
In the section presenting short term goals which is labelled as "Graphite Tomorrow", two of the points are redundant as Graphite already "Looks and feels like traditional WYSIWYG design apps" and has an "interface built by designers". The other points of a native app and collaborative editing appear at the bottom of the roadmap list, making the current short term goals seem inconsistent. Furthermore in the roadmap, the brush tool is checked, despite it not having basic features such as pressure sensitivity, different textures, smudging, different blend modes for strokes, etc.
In the "Powerful proceduralism" section, the tools are again cited as being "fully nondestructive" which is not true, or a particularly practical feature for actual art creation; as artwork is continually adjusted leading to massive graphs filled with slight edit operations. The "infinitely scalable raster content with no pixelation" is perhaps a typo, as raster content by definition is made of a grid of pixels and so has a fixed resolution. This could instead be changed to "infinitely scalable vector content". Perhaps I am not aware, but I do not believe that "Procedural pipelines for studio production environments" is currently in development.
In the "One app to rule them all" section, I strongly believe that the scope should be reduced by eliminating at least 3 of these areas. For example none of the core contributors have experience in digital publishing, so trying to make Graphite competitive in that space whilst also developing all of the other areas seems overly ambitious for a small volunteer team.