The plan for us was to have our UX people draft the structure of the page – or modules within it – on one page and allowing our designer to complete another page. Go straight from sketching to Webflow.
We have no need (in fact it would be impractical) for real time collaboration on one page. But building out a site that requires input from four people, when only one can access at a time, is tricky. Obviously, live updates from the CSS as it changes would be slick, although it could get messy very fast.
Our initial workaround ideas (copy and paste between sites, embedding code, export code to marry up externally – leading to version control problems, or manually update CSS and HTML within web flow) were either impractical or not supported.
Our current workaround is to work on separate sites, export, annotate and rebuild on one master site. We're estimating that that process adds on an hour (ish) for our designer and an hour (ish) for our UX people.
This doesn't sound like a lot, but if we have 10 templates that's 20 hours extra work.
We're trialling Webflow across the company at the moment and we've scaled it up to two pilot projects after good experiences on small scale stuff. We're pretty positive about the experience but we're clearly pushing up against what the tool was intended for – at least in it's early iterations.
If we can be of any assistance in feeding back our experiences we'd be happy to do so.