You are reading an article. Lots more of these in the archives. Nishant Kothary Meet Nishant Arrow

Articles

58Comment Retweet

The Future of Wireframes

Mar 2, 2010 In Design By Nishant Kothary

As we move into the next decade of web design, it's time for us to reevaluate our understanding of wireframes—a tried and tested user experience staple

This article is part II in a series covering the topic of Web Design. Check out Part I—The Anatomy of Web Design, Part III—A Common Sense Content Strategy and Part IV—Discovering Trustworthiness. Evan Sharp will contribute the remaining article. Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to our RSS feed to be notified of its publication.

Riddle me this: How do you piss of a UX professional? The answer: Call him a “designer”.

These days, user experience professionals look down on the word “designer” because it implies that their primary role is to paint pretty pixels. UX is more than that, they clarify. Much more!

Just how much? Well, here’s a diagram (that uses pretty pixels) to explain how much more—

The Spectrum of UX

Holy guacamole, Batman! Elliptical hotness!

But wait! Does this diagram mean there is only one successful UX professional in the world? Steve “DamnItNotHimAgain” Jobs? Because no so-called “designer” can possibly wear all these hats.

It’s time we end this madness! While we’re squabbling over why one type of designer is different or better than another (and falling prey to one of the oldest colonization tactics in the book: divide and conquer), our industry continues to build crappy software. And without us.

Convergence in the Simulacrum

IA, content strategy and visual design are quickly converging on the Web. As design becomes democratized and users demand more than the “craigslist experience”, business owners are discovering that the way to keep users on a site is to differentiate themselves through intelligent content and innovative design that exist within the natural patterns available to the respective mediums (browsers, phones).

In 1999, Jakob Nielsen wrote an article that was undeniably ahead of its time: Differences between Print Design & Web Design. He argued that anything that is a great print design is likely to be a lousy web design due to the inherent differences between the two mediums. Most notably:

  • Print design is 2-dimensional while web design is 1-dimensional and n-dimensional simultaneously. The web experience is fundamentally a “scrolling experience” dominated by movement between pages through hyperlinks.
  • Print is about seeing, web is about doing. The “look and feel” of a web site is dominated by “feel”,i.e. the user experience. This is because doing always makes a stronger emotional impact than seeing.
  • Print is immensely superior to the Web in terms of speed,type, image quality and canvas size. The Web has problems associated with low bandwidth, low screen resolution and limited screen sizes that affect the user experience significantly.

Fast-forward to 2010 and it’s pretty easy to see how these differences have diminished drastically—or even disappeared. Users have become savvier and technology has improved. The leading edge of web design capitalizes on how minor these differences are today. Print-y web sites like Jason Santa Maria’s personal blog or Carsonified’s business site are just two examples of this. You can find hundreds more on web design showcases like Drawar.

Jason Santa Maria's Personal Blog

I daresay to God that the Web is finally converging with Print. So, where does this leave our trusty wireframes?

The Problem with Wireframes Today

You can find hundreds of definitions of the word ‘wireframe’ on the Web. Here’s one that represents what’s typically practiced today [courtesy webopedia]:

A wireframe is a visualization tool for presenting proposed functions, structure and content of a Web page or Web site.

Unfortunately, the most common interpretation of this definition practiced in workplaces leaves much to be desired:

A wireframe is a line drawing that dictates exactly what functionality and content is located where on a Web page or Web site.

This interpretation drastically limits the potential of a web design. It sets a glass ceiling for the visuals and copywriting, two supremely important aspects of great web design. It promotes the notion that visual designers and copywriters needn’t bother themselves with size, location and functionality of the elements of a design and that their individual products—the UI and the copy—don’t play much of a role in shaping the flow and interaction on a web site.

This may have been true in 1999, when we were all getting used to the new UX metaphors of the Internet. But it certainly isn’t the case today, in a time where mediums and disciplines are converging and metaphors like the “back button” or “scrolling” have become muscle memory.

Bottom line? We need to update our interpretation of the word “wireframe”.

Rethinking Wireframes

A little less than a year ago, Isaac Pinnock of Made by Many wrote an article titled, The Future of Wireframes? Our articles share titles and arrive at very similar conclusions, but they use some very contradictory terminology along the way.

Isaac wrote about terrible “functional wireframes” from the 90′s being replaced with wonderful “visual wireframes” of today, for example:

10 years ago the first wireframes I used were about as functional as you can get – a long list of page elements: static text, dynamic text, input text, radio button and so on. They were universally awful. About the only concession to help people understand how the page worked was to group common functionality into individual tables.

The wireframes were functional rather than visual as they were used to describe how the page should be built. Certainly, when you consider the screen from a developer’s perspective a list of different functional elements is probably quite logical.

However, from a user experience point of view this was a killer. Functional wireframes are incredibly difficult to read – the method of presentation gets in the way of being able to translate the information into a real screen, especially at the review stage.

This is going to seem very confusing, but unlike Isaac, I use the term “functional wireframe” in a very positive light and take for granted that wireframes are “visual”. By attaching the label “functional” in front of “wireframe”, I am asserting what is and isn’t in scope for that particular wireframe. The first page of my wireframe deck explains this clearly:

First page of wireframe deck for MIX Online

Functional wireframes—call them whatever you want—strike a balance between functional specifications and traditional wireframes. They have some very powerful benefits, especially when the members of a design team have cross-disciplinary skills (this is usually the case today). Most notably:

  1. They democratize layout decisions, allowing the natural synthesis of a more unified final design.
  2. They encourage collaboration and allow designers (visual, IA, content, interaction, etc.) to arrive at a holistic vision.
  3. They help manage client and stakeholder expectations by focusing the discussion on page-level functionality during reviews.

Of course, for functional wireframes to work, there is a higher tax on softer skills like communication, feedback loops, and trust. Functional wireframes are not for organizations that haven’t grasped basic principles that allow us to predictably design great solutions that meet business needs.

But, as the MIX Online redesign case study demonstrates, functional wireframes can truly promote the behaviors necessary to create more cohesive designs.

The MIX Online Case Study

We created MIX Online’s functional wireframes over the span of exactly one week (the IA phase). As promised on the introductory page of the wireframe deck, I attached a color code at the top of each wireframe to indicate my confidence in its layout. Here’s an example of a profile page wireframe:

Functional Wireframe for About Page

The process I used was pretty simple: I created a couple of wireframes a day, updated the deck and then posted it on both Basecamp projects. You may remember from Part I of this series—The Anatomy of Web Design—that the MIX Online stakeholders were restricted to one dedicated Basecamp project, while the design team was restricted to another. I served as the conduit.

On the stakeholder side, the MIX Online team was focused on finding gaps in my thinking and ensuring that I wasn’t missing any needed functionality. On the design team side, Tiff, Matt and I were engaged in intensely iterative conversations—digging into the content strategy, formulating a strategy and tone for copy, brainstorming around visual design, developing a category/sub-category taxonomy, and so on.

What we didn’t spend any time discussing was layout—in other words, the location of all the different boxes of information. Functional wireframes postpone layout discussions and ultimately rely on the Visual Designer to finalize layout of the various elements on the page. This is not to say that I didn’t suggest page-level layout in my wireframes. In fact, I did—and in many cases, strongly so.

For the most part, though, I didn’t get caught up in layout details. My primary interests were to ensure that I had created a sensible sitemap and captured all the right functionality to support our business. I was also focused on ensuring that I’d partitioned the functionality between pages to encourage the right behaviors among users.

You can download the final set of wireframes by clicking on the image below. I encourage you to compare the wireframes to the actual site. Notice that in many cases, even the layouts marked “green” didn’t quite work out. For instance, the Labs page is one where Matt decided to go with a simplified layout similar to our prior lab page.

Download the Wireframe Deck for MIX Online

As a whole, this approach departs from traditional IA methods—which include providing an actual blueprint for the site, layout and all. But it’s precisely this departure that is necessary to take designs to the next level.

In parts III & IV of this series—Tiffani’s article on Content Strategy and Matt’s on Visual Design—you’ll see more examples and evidence relating to effectiveness of the organic functional wireframe approach.

Back to the Future

Daniel Pink argues in his book—A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future—that software design is fairly unchartered territory, but will mature in this century.

Web design is one of the sub-genres of software design that’s just started a slow crawl, characterized by constant retracing of steps, out of its infancy. Less than a decade ago, the introduction of WYSIWYG editors promised to deliver the holy grail of web design. Today, good ol’ text editors like TextMate—the ancestors of WYSIWYG editors—are taking their place yet again.

The point is that the discipline of user experience could and probably will look completely different a few decades from now. IA as we understand it could cease to exist, and it could very well merge with visual design. The possibilities are endless.

Which is why we need to entertain the idea that we’re doing it all wrong at the moment and embrace the notion of cross-disciplinary approaches whenever we get the opportunity. Functional wireframes are but one attempt at that.

Isaac Pinnock said it best in the conclusion of his article:

The best sites are those where there’s a seamless divide between the look, the content and the experience. Being able to model an interaction and understand how someone moves through a site are crucial skills in this trilogy. It’s time designers stepped up to the plate and claimed wireframes as their own.

p.s. If you liked this, then you may like what I write at rainypixels.com.

Follow the Conversation

58 comments so far. You should leave one, too.

Michael Michael said on Mar 2, 2010

First off, gorgeous website. Absolutely magnificent.

But Steve Jobs isn''t a UX King:

http://bit.ly/JmPfL

Is actually the worst customer service practice I''ve seen, and would expect it from a business of 3 people, not Apple.

Matt Ryan Matt Ryan said on Mar 2, 2010

Love this article!

Design Informer said on Mar 2, 2010

Excellent article Nishant. Very good follow-up from the first part of the series about Web Design.

As far as wireframes are concerned, I used to not really use them. I used to just sketch then jump straight to Photoshop and XHTML/CSS. However, recently, I''ve started to really take my time with the actual IA stage and with wireframing and what a difference it makes. My current blog design now is a result of careful planning, wireframing, designing and testing. I am definitely not advanced at all when it comes to doing these things, but I am trying my best to read up on as many articles that deal with the subject.

In-depth web design case study type articles like this definitely provide me with the knowledge that I''m craving. Keep up the great work. I wouldn''t expect anything less from the awesome MIX team. Oh, and BTW, the more I visit the site, the more I love the design. It''s awesome the first time I saw it and it seems to just get nicer everytime. :)

mahalie mahalie said on Mar 2, 2010

Excellent, thanks for sharing the Mix Online PDF - what a great resource. I love seeing how other professionals are doing their thing behind the scenes.

david lee david lee said on Mar 2, 2010

Nice article, however, MIX wireframes example doesnt look too different than any other wireframes? Am I missing something here?

BaconCheeseSuperString BaconCheeseSuperString said on Mar 2, 2010

If people want to make the web this complex and techno-wondrous, then they better start grasping the fact that it won''t be cheap. Being a web developer/programmer requires constantly re-learning. To be one is to almost be a perpetual college student who''ll only finish the day s/he dies. Yet people expect Facbeook made in a week from scratch for $150? I can''t remember the last time I even used basic wireframes. I learned web design in the 90''s by eye and using tables with no CSS. The field was so underdeveloped. Now I find myself against a wall trying to please dozens of cheap, impatient clients. No time to act like a philosophical math-monk and spend 3 weeks planning a site in a lab with flowcharts and wireframes and venn diagrams and intimate brainstorming. Sucks...

Tidy Design Tidy Design said on Mar 2, 2010

Yep agree a user experience will be completely different a few decades from now... All in all a tidy read thank you!

Patrick Woods Patrick Woods said on Mar 2, 2010

I don''t have much say, other than thanks (a l0t) for challenging us all.

Keith Keith said on Mar 2, 2010

I think the best part of this is sharing the MIX Online PDF! Examples, for the win.

Having said that, you make some good points here Nishant! I really love the idea of setting expectations up front and also your color-coded confidence blocks.

What a simple, useful idea.

I used to do something similar in my initial design docs, but focused more on content priority. I think giving a visual cue (or any cue, for that matter, haha) to the solidity of a design decision is really helpful to just about anyone who interacts with the document.

And that''s the point of deliverables, right? They are a means to communicate and frame design decisions for discussion.

Good ideas! Thanks for sharing!

Tuhin Kumar Tuhin Kumar said on Mar 3, 2010

Great article Nishant. As always brilliant stuff for designers. I have personally had those awkward moments where I ended up calling a UX professional as a designer and they ended up being very irritated about it.
I am yet to understand why they would not want to be called a designer. As a designer I end up doing UX, visual design and information architecture on the small sites that I design, so where does that put designers like us?

Varun Gautam Varun Gautam said on Mar 3, 2010

why pdf document you have on webpage written

Do Not Distribute.

But you have it on website

Mikael Halén said on Mar 3, 2010

Very well said once again! I already looking forward to the day when my google reader says *boink* and yet a excellent MIX article drops in.

ConorOS said on Mar 3, 2010

Easy there ''BaconCheeseSuperString''

"I learned web design in the 90’s by eye and using tables with no CSS. The field was so underdeveloped. Now I find myself against a wall trying to please dozens of cheap, impatient clients. No time to act like a philosophical math-monk and spend 3 weeks planning a site in a lab with flowcharts and wireframes and venn diagrams and intimate brainstorming"

I really want to see some of your work ... please post

Gabby said on Mar 3, 2010

It''s hard to imagine how this article could be more baseless or ill-informed. Though it''s blindingly obvious that the author spends next to no time in any of the active professional UX spaces--the IxDA or IAI discussion lists, just for starters--or he would know that UX practitioners have, by and large, long since claimed ''designer'' for themselves.

The most glaring problem, however, is that nothing in this article manages to ''depart from traditional IA methods''--again, going only to prove that the author knows not of what he speaks.

Thrilled as I am at the increasing attention UX work is receiving, I remain frustrated and disappointed at the ease with which misinformation can masquerade as expertise. You, sir, are not doing the field any favors.

Paul Gill said on Mar 3, 2010

Good common sense.

>> I think the best part of this is sharing the MIX Online PDF! Examples, for the win.

Indeed, thanks for sharing - best part of the article. It''s really handy to see how other people work.

Paul.

Andrea D'Intino Andrea D'Intino said on Mar 3, 2010

Excellent article, I wish we read more of those one year ago... :-)
We wrote the story of the GUI of our own app here:

http://tabbles.net/blog/2009/12/15/the-evolution-of-a-gui-and-the-pulsating-life-of-a-ux/

We probably didn''t do that many mistakes (having an experienced designer by our side did help too) apart from a major one: we developed a desktop-app thinking we were making a web-app... and this clearly revealed as no-go.

Drew said on Mar 3, 2010

Gabby - I definitely agree with you - As a still emergent discipline with very fuzzy boundaries at times it seems odd that so much opinion can be dressed up as expertise...

Drew said on Mar 3, 2010

Gabby - I definitely agree with you - As a still emergent discipline with very fuzzy boundaries at times it seems odd that so much opinion can be dressed up as expertise...

David David said on Mar 3, 2010

Excellent, insightful article. I couldn´t agree more about "functional wireframes"! In the era of web 2.0 and complex interactive apps, it´s a must-do! But then what´s the difference between "functional wireframes" and a "sketchy functional prototypes"? I recommend the use of Justinmind Prototyper, great tool to create functional dynamic/interactive wireframes without a single line of code.

Nishant Kothary Nishant Kothary said on Mar 3, 2010

Apologies for leaving in the copyright footer on the wireframes, folks. Just ignore it and feel free to distribute or use. They were confidential during the design process, but I''m officially putting them in the public domain now.

@Michael—Point taken. But you have to admit, he comes closer than most. :)

@Jad (Design Informer)—You''re on a very natural path. The bad news is that there''s no fixed curriculum path to become a "UX Pro". That''s also the good news—lots of room for innovation and improvement. Lots of amazing and talented folks who''ve written in depth about various aspects of the discipline.

@David Lee—Nope, you''re not missing anything. It''s *exactly* the same. The difference is the context—how it''s positioned to stakeholders and how the design team uses the wireframes to move forward. It''s a subtle difference, but it makes a world of a difference.

@Keith—You put it way more eloquently than I could. +1. Nice to finally "meet" you, btw. I''ve enjoyed your work over the years.

@Tuhin—I have to admit, I used to do that for a while, too. The word "designer" is pretty tainted in most organizations. It would take an entire book to really trace the origins of the phenomenon, but in a nutshell it''s all related to ignorance. It''s natural for us as humans to not want to be a part of a "pack" that''s perceived as "weaker". I''m exaggerating a little, I admit. Things have improved drastically over the past decade and they continue to improve.

@BaconCheeseSuperString—That''s precisely the problem, man.

@David—Thanks for the pointer. And yep, no difference really. I responded to David Lee''s comment above on the same topic.

@Gabby—There''s a really valid conversation to be had on this topic. Basing it conference attendance, professional organization membership and comparison of resume line items littered with buzz words is hardly a good starting point for it. I''ll be happy to write up my creds for you (and there is Google, you know), but I honestly think it''s a red herring. Here are a few for your benefit, anyway. Not only have I attended IxDA, DUX, UX Week, etc. events, I''ve actually spoken at and helped organize conferences on web design/development for a decade now. Notice that we''re actually sponsoring "IA Summit 2010":http://2010.iasummit.org/. As recently as a few months ago I collaborated with one of my most respected IA''s in the space—"Nick Finck":http://www.nickfinck.com. On that note, several of my ideas and opinions in this post were inspired by watching him "do IA". He gets UX.

The glaring problem is that you really provide no constructive arguments. Of course none of what I said departs from standard IA deliverable conventions.That''s the point! My contention is that there''s some unnecessary, ongoing polarization in this space stunting innovation at times. I get the sense that your knee-jerk reaction is around job and role security. Or maybe it''s just that you don''t like any sort of convention to be challenged; after all, traditions are wonderful and warm security blankets. I presume you''ve read "The Polar Bear Book":http://www.amazon.com/Information-Architecture-World-Wide-Web/dp/1565922824; even the modern fathers of the practice of IA talk about how you don''t need information architects in most situations. I''d extend that assertion to UX, too. It''s just the truth of the matter that, and I quote, "Information architecture happens!" So, how do we reposition ourselves in this space?

If you had read between the lines, you''d have realized (like "most of these folks":http://topsy.com/tb/www.visitmix.com/Articles/The-Future-of-Wireframes) what I''m really advocating—information architects (and UX folk) would be better used much earlier in the product development cycle (especially on the Web). The process we used very naturally positioned me not only to influence core business decisions, but actually define them. I actually believe that that''s the right evolution and the natural one.

UX pros have the right experiences and intuition for helping define product direction at a (I''m about to use a dirty word) "strategic" level. This is not to say that this doesn''t already happen today or that I''ve come up with something brilliant; in fact, I haven''t… I''m just telling you what we as a group have been advocating for years now. But, in practice, we''re far from where we need to be. I know this because I''ve worked at two companies in the past five years that have a combined worldwide workforce of 140,000 employees and have seen ample evidence to support my argument (unfortunately).

@Drew—Do you realize that your response is an awesome oxymoron? :-) I agree with the spirit of your sentiment—we should all open our eyes to the opportunity presented by such an emergent discipline and not get bogged down by theories that give an illusion that it''s not.

kenndroid kenndroid said on Mar 3, 2010

Great article, very insightful. But I find it odd that you made no mention of prototyping replacing wireframes in the near future. Most prototyping software (such as ProtoShare and Axure) allows collaboration with all team members, and commenting features that can potentially eliminate the need for unnecessary meetings and thus save time. Plus they give the ability to export wireframes should they be deemed necessary.

Nishant Nishant said on Mar 3, 2010

@kenndroid—Yeah, I should have worked it in somehow; @David mentioned JustInMind in the comments and I can think of a handful of others I''ve played around with (Microsoft even has SketchFlow, but that wouldn''t have been the right choice for us). It really came down to the right choice for the design team on this one. We knew we wouldn''t need any prototyping collaboration going from IA to visual design other than some basecamp conversations. Matt and I were pretty clear that I was going to knock out IA (in the functional form) and he was going to refine the IA as he merged visuals/copy together. I prototyped on paper because I had the luxury of doing that. :-)

Karsten Januszewski Karsten Januszewski said on Mar 4, 2010

"Convergence in the Simulacrum" - hey I think I''ve heard that one before somewhere... :)

Nishant Nishant said on Mar 4, 2010

@karsten—I was wondering when you''d notice, dude ;-) Heh.

Nishant Nishant said on Mar 4, 2010

@karsten—I was wondering when you''d notice, dude ;-) Heh.

BaconCheeseSuperString BaconCheeseSuperString said on Mar 4, 2010

@Nishant Kothary: And, as part of my rant, I agree...man. But I don''t really think making a whole universe out of "UX" is the solution. UX people really come off to me as weird subgroups like SEO Gurus. Why do you need UX when you have UI Design Theory, which is enough? Designers, especially web designers, will learn UI Design. Making it out to be more like it''s some "User Experience Philosophy Management Systems Beliefs" thing is kinda eerie.

@ConorOS: Whoa, dude. Hold up there, cowboy. Calm down, man. Ay caramba, hombre. How about you show me...a picture of yourself first so I know you''re not some 16-year-old wasting my time.

Daniel Schutzsmith Daniel Schutzsmith said on Mar 5, 2010

I agree with most of the folks here, that the example pdf is spot on and gorgeous!

One other thing I''d like to say is that the future of wireframing also tends to be making the terminology we use, easier for the layman to understand. I''ve noticed this need a lot lately because of the magnitude of VP''s and management whom are now concerned with their brand''s websites and are taking an active role in the design process (more than in the past when they''d usually only say, "my nephew is a webmaster, maybe he could help you decide the structure of the e-commerce store?").

Great post!

Tomaz Zaman Tomaz Zaman said on Mar 6, 2010

I love it how you always back up your writings by stuff we can actually use on our projects (beside the knowledge)
Thanx!

e-ticaret e-ticaret said on Mar 8, 2010

sagolun arkadaslar...

rtpHarry rtpHarry said on Mar 10, 2010

Hey, I just wanted to point out that the box at the start of this article says it is part 2 in a series but lists two more parts before it. Still reading the actual article...

leah leah said on Mar 11, 2010

@BaconCheeseSuperString - Hey, we have the same clients! I''ve had some clients really explore the discovery phase and approve wireframes and then design and the result was something I actually wanted in my portfolio and it worked great for the client too... A lot of freelance web design is based on the McDonalds approach-- fast, cheap, and not good for the soul. The client is always wanted to see the pretty painted boxes their ridiculously lenghty content will inhabit.

Love the article. I need to up my game and sell the discovery/planning stage a little better and hopefully get better clients in the end.

Abdullah Al Mamun Abdullah Al Mamun said on Mar 13, 2010

Simply elegant site, excellent contents, thanks guys.

Karen Graham Karen Graham said on Mar 23, 2010

Love the UX Spectrum diagram!
How about a link to a dowloadable/printable version. Would love to hang this on the wall about poster size.

Cristian Cristian said on Mar 25, 2010

Great article! I wrote a piece about my wireframing process a few months back - http://bit.ly/zI01f
Thanks for the great resources and the graph from Information Architects.

Aneesh Karve Aneesh Karve said on Apr 18, 2010

Thank you for the article.

Functional wireframes, as you describe them, have the following drawbacks:

1) They treat stakeholders like designers. It takes as much skill to read a functional wireframe as it does to create one (see _Sketching User Experiences_ or _Visual Thinking for Design_ for evidence of this point; the skill of reading a sketch is sometimes called "creative meta-seeing"). The first page of your functional wireframes is evidence of this skill gap. Should it really require one full page of instructions for stakeholders to evaluate the content?

2) Functional wireframes are neither purely functional, nor purely visual, and therefore compromise on both fronts. As an example, let''s look at how to enhance Benefit 3, managing expectations. If we want stakeholders and designers to focus on function over form, doesn''t it make sense to start with a list of functional goals, 100% text? This provides maximum creative freedom to the design team, creates objective criteria against which future design proposals can be measured, and eliminates personal bias against specific forms. By skipping the list of functional goals, and jumping right into page-level wireframes, any number of assumptions have been made and may live on as blind-spots.

Once the functional goals are in place, the design team can focus on proposing multiple incarnations of the functional goals to the stakeholders. These incarnations may diverge substantially in form, but converge in function.

Functional goals crisply separate form and function, whereas functional wireframes confuse them. A crisp initial separation between form and function lets designers and stakeholders, respectively, do what they do best, and prevents them from using an arrow as a digging stick (or vice versa).

Lastly, with a wonderfully provocative title like "The Future of Wireframes," I expected an entirely new method of wireframing. But I see little that''s new. Did I miss something, or did I just bring too many expectations to the table? :)

Web to Print Web to Print said on May 12, 2010

"Web is finally converging with Print"... This is true an many levels.

Aimee Aimee said on May 12, 2010

I thought points and line are one dimensional but that even a square represented on a flat surface is two dimensional - making the web two dimensional not one dimensional.

Elisabeth Thebaud Elisabeth Thebaud said on Jul 5, 2010

Great article Nishant! I especially liked what you chose to end your article;
Isaac Pinnock said it best in the conclusion of his article:

The best sites are those where there''s a seamless divide between the look, the content and the experience. Being able to model an interaction and understand how someone moves through a site are crucial skills in this trilogy. It''s time designers stepped up to the plate and claimed wireframes as their own.

I think this emergence of wireframes and "visual design" fused together can be seen since 2006. Designers are asked to create the "wireframes", interaction and the visual design...

Abner Abner said on Aug 29, 2010

Fantastic article, great reading for a newbie like me :)

peyzaj peyzaj said on Nov 2, 2010

excellent article

cenaze said on Nov 28, 2010

great congratulations

beko beko said on Jan 18, 2011

to create different results.

beko beko said on Jan 20, 2011

I think this emergence of wireframes and “visual design” fused together can be seen since 2006.

Jadson Dantas Jadson Dantas said on Feb 20, 2011

I agree with their approaches about the UX, but you''re mistaking when he says "...because it implies that their primary role is to paint pretty pixels". You need to know more about management methods, projects and processes of design.

barkod etiketi barkod etiketi said on Mar 10, 2011

barkod ürünleri

Web Design Portsmouth said on May 3, 2011

Great post. Web design should always be focused around the point of view of the user and their needs.

Built in Bedroom Furniture said on May 28, 2011

Yes a wireframe is a visualization tool for delivering functions, structures and content etc of a web pages... However a wireframe can also be used to map our goals, targets and goals in both business and life. As a creative person, coder or designer, you have to figure out the right plan to test and build your products... Wireframes are awesome for this! Thanks for a great blog post!

Web Design Hampshire said on May 28, 2011

At Tidy Design we often use wireframes to map out the design and layout of new websites... I think a decent wireframe acts as a solid foundation for any bespoke website or application... Great post, thank you for sharing! :D

Free Wireframing Kits, UI Design Kits, PDFs and Resources - Smashing Magazine said on Jun 10, 2011

[...] The Future of Wireframes As we move into the next decade of Web design, it’s time to re-evaluate our understanding of wireframes, a tried and tested user experience staple. [...]

Clark Valberg said on Jul 5, 2011

So glad I stumbled across this today.
It really speaks to the goals of our new project, InVision ( http://www.InVisionApp.com ). We've always believed that wireframes needed to be a) beautiful b) interactive and c) inside the browser. Whenever you're sharing your vision for something in the abstract, it's important to bring the conversation into context as much as possible. This reduces distraction and keeps the subject focused on the task at hand.

dugun fotografcisi said on Jul 17, 2011

Excellent, thanks for sharing the Mix Online PDF - what a great resource. I love seeing how other professionals are doing their thing behind the scenes.

Jason said on Jul 20, 2011

great, thanks for giving the information, interesting to see how it's done.

Back to the Future of Wireframes — Rainypixels said on Aug 3, 2011

[...] A year ago, I proposed the future of wireframes. [...]

Rosie said on Aug 6, 2011

Hey, really cool site, really useful and insightful, I work for Conveyancing Solicitors in Portsmouth and found this site really useful.

Anne Jolki said on Sep 8, 2011

Personally i think that without Wireframes there is no other way how to express your self as a designer! If you not use them you are loosing so mutch creativity and opportunities! So sad that it is not so popular novadays!
Regards to all,
Anne

Wireframing Resources « MAXSTUDIOTECH said on Oct 16, 2011

[...] The Future of Wireframes Here’s a great post from MIX that talks about how the web has changed and how wireframes will need to change with it. [...]

Ultimate Guide to Website Wireframing | Barsky Design Firm said on Nov 11, 2011

[...] The Future of Wireframes [...]

apptimization said on Apr 27, 2012

Such a type of blog post will definitely click to numerous viewers. A good article and useful for its written content. Many thanks for sharing it up!. Thanks! Will probably be nice to anyone who usess it, including myself. Sustain the nice work for positive ill take a look at extra posts. A lot more Additional .