Thanks for your comments. I may not have been very clear in my post. I'm not really interested in Form Builder and certainly wouldn't use it. However the reason I mention it is that it seems it's going to be integrated with DataAssist (or perhaps the new framework too) which could diminish DataAssist's usefulness.
I appreciate that Form Builder may be helpful and produce attractive results for people who don't know CSS or are not concerned about the code it produces. However I would have thought DataAssist is also useful to people who do care about the code (and could possibly write it themselves) and therefore might mind about the poor and inefficient CSS that is automatically generated by DataAssist - as far as I can see, quite unneccessarily.
I would have thought the CSS produced by DataAssist - eg assigning a class to every table cell - is not only inefficient and difficult to work with, but probably more difficult to generate too. Only very little CSS is required on the page - a tiny fraction of what is generated. I expect this approach may have been implemented by someone who was more of a designer, perhaps not so familiar with CSS (though I have no doubt there are employees at Webassist who are experts in all required areas). I don't think the code is the inevitable result of automated code generation.
I hope WA will consider this aspect in the new version of DataAssist. Failing this (or in addition to this) an option to exclude CSS altogether would be very welcome.