I have tried to stay away from creating templates that are using images for headings, navigations, etc. because I’m trying to make as easy as possible for buyers to make changes without knowledge of photoshop/fireworks. I’ve noticed that others have taken the opposite direction and I’m curious if that is paying off with sales.
I think its a good balance between how easy it is to customize and how good it looks..
because if the design looks clean that will be the first impression before if its easy to edit.
Put it like this…
A potential buyer sees two templates… one is looking better than the other one, or even they see that “uglier” one first, so its already in the trash..
Then the Nicer looking one, will have to be checked out, and if its easy to edit, awesome… sale closed.. but if its VERY confusing then this can hurt sales IMO …
BUT the uglier design could of been easier to edit, who knows because it was out of the question within 5 seconds of viewing it…
So I say, make it look clean + attractive and then easy to edit the BEST you can dealing with what you have made, I mean its not the way it should be, but thats how I see it working , if I was a customer…
Making a template easy to edit is very important, I’m trying to make nearly everything editable on my template without knowing much at all of photo editing… but sometimes you have to balance between the two.
That said yea, I would say balance them, but the look has a heavier weight on the scale in my opinion.
Are authors finding that buyers are comfortable with basic photoshop modifications?
I can’t speak for buyers, but I think if they are delving into template customization, some minor photoshop tweaks shouldn’t hurt too bad.
I think its all up to you in the end. I personally would rather get the easiest form, and appreciate graphical elements if it was absolutely necessary to maintain the look of the theme.
Meaning if it can be pulled off without the use of graphics, I’d personally rather it be done in the code…plus it all helps towards load time and bandwidth.