I didn't really intend to pick on Selenium. Actually, that's the exact wording from the title of the article I used as my reference, so I though it would be fair to leave it the way it is.
But I agree, Selenium is one of the many cases illustrating the huge impact of open-source projects on the technology, and we must give it credit for that.
I guess we're talking about two different approaches to solving the same problem (code-based tests can't be used by non-technical people). So we can:
1. Substitute writing code with a visual editor. This is, essentially, what Screenster does.
2. Make scripting abstract enough to a point where it starts to resemble plain English. That's, in a nutshell, the approach of Cucumber.
Each of the two has its pros and cons. In my opinion, the key strength of tools like Screenster in this context is how they address visual/css regression testing (specifically, things like text or image formatting issues, layout issues and other things that typically get broken by CSS updates):
http://screenster.io/a-better-way-to-do-visual-regression-te...
As the author of that article about Selenium IDE alternatives, exactly!
I mean, if you want to do end-to-end UI testing, you'd probably want manual testers to cover a huge part of the routine. And tools like Screenster help you automate the process and use it for UI regression testing.
Much less frustrating — maybe, but not always economically feasible.
In case with some (actually, a lot of) projects, people who can code will have to spend 100% of their time coding features. Tools Selenium IDE strive to offer a 'good enough' solution for cases when you're trying to automate the work of manual testers or have less technical members of your team involved into UI testing. And tools like Screenster turn 'good enough' into a working solution.
Visual regression testing is, imho, another case for tools like Screenster (http://bit.ly/2kXEEFV), even though I know that, technically, you have some of this functionality with Protractor (http://bit.ly/2kune0t).