Stop trying to kill the wireframe!
Wireframes have been around for some time now and while they have been vastly discussed, blogged and argued about, I think they are still widely misused and devalued.
I’ve been inspired to write this article in response to a blog post a recently read here. The title alone was enough to shock me and I was pretty much shaking my head in disbelief throughout the whole article. But then I read the “About” section and found that the author has a “technical background”. Well that sort of explains it, but the article still got me thinking it’s worth explaining my take on wireframes for the non-believers out there.
Firstly, the author of the mentioned article compares wireframes to architectural drawings.
“In the same way that architectural drawings might outline what goes where for buildings, wireframes outline what goes where for a set of UI screens.”

This is quite a nice way to explain wireframes to clients and any other non-techies. It sets their expectations from the start. Most people will have a sort of mental model of what an architectural drawing looks like so when they see your wireframes there won't be that initial shock and confusion. I would say this statement also demonstrates the importance of wireframes. I don’t think anyone undertaking a building project would ever dream of removing the architect from the picture and bringing in the builders straight away, would they?
The author then goes on to list some disadvantages to wireframes. Firstly, I think these are very specific to cases where wireframes are done badly by people who don’t understand their purpose and just do them because they read somewhere that they should. Secondly, don’t all tools have their disadvantages anyway and isn’t it up to us, as professionals, to work around the limitations posed by tools and technologies we use?
The author then concludes that the solution to the listed disadvantages is to “bypass wireframes altogether” and jump straight into rapid prototyping.
WHAT? Skip wireframes all together?!

Here’s why I think this is a crazy statement:
1) Wireframes put the focus on the user first, functionality and visual aspects second. They strip down a website to its bare bones enabling clients to focus on what it is they want the website to achieve and what it is they want the user to do on the website. As soon as you introduce design elements into a prototype you are moving the focus to visuals. Clients start to get bogged down with stuff like “can we please make our logo bigger?” or “can we make that photo more exciting?” You end up wasting a lot of energy reminding them to please focus on the bigger issues
2) Wireframes, if explained properly to clients, are a quick and easy way to get sign-off on page layouts and functionality before you even touch any code. It is not logical to use prototypes as first stage feedback. It is much quicker and easier to drag a box across the screen than it is to rewrite code.
3) Wireframes, once signed off, act as a central document for the project team to refer to throughout the project ensuring everyone is on the same page.
I do agree that rapid prototyping is another great technique to use in some web projects. It can be extremely useful when collecting user feedback and testing out functionality, for example. However, I think prototyping is a lot more costly and not all projects will necessarily have the budget for it. Wireframes, on the other hand, are an absolute must for all web projects. They should be instinctively incorporated into the early stages of the project and failing to do that could potentially mean higher costs in the long run.
So to all of you out there who are trying to kill the wireframe – it will never work!
Wireframes are a useful, effective and essential tool.
Trying to avoid them and opt for other techniques instead is not only cutting corners but also compromising the effectiveness of your website.
TweetWhat's this?
Corporate Edge - the brand led communications agency.
A few thoughts from some of the Edgers...
- The social networking giant's first female engineer http://t.co/2qozISRcPosted 1 minute ago
- How common is your birthday? http://t.co/FoVS8i8iPosted 8 minutes ago
- American Airlines lifetime airpass another uneconomic promotion that comes back and bites http://t.co/yVUraKNYPosted 17 hours ago
- We're all connected which makes intergrated marketing and branding obvious, but not easy http://t.co/tn9qpLirPosted 18 hours ago
Get connected
HideRecent comments
HideTag cloud
Hide- Brand management
Brands
Brand strategy
Business
Class Act
Communications
Corporate reporting
Corporate social responsibility
Corporate voice
Design
Digital communications
Employee engagement
Innovation
Just for fun
Miscellaneous
Mobile
Red room
Retro
Social media
Technology
Tuesday Tech
User experience
Video
Visual identity





25 Nov 10 - 01:14pm
Hi Ven,
Like you, I think skipping straight to prototypes without wireframing is probably taking the agile scenario a little too far, especially if you’re working with a client. In my experience, it’s unusual to have a client that is able to be involved sufficiently to make that work.
That means you have to have a mechanism for getting functionality signed off and traditionally that’s the wireframes job. I’ve been using Visio for years but recently had a look at some of the on-line tools that might help the collaboration process and really like Protoshare.
With a little bit of practice, a non-technical person can mock up a reasonable working prototype that makes the wireframes come to life for the client. Have a look at my (nearly finished) demo of my publishing platform: -
http://compoundmedia.co.uk/jumpdemo
This allows the client to really get a feel for how the site might work without going to the extent of creating a full working prototype. There are probably other tools out there that do something similar and you’ve obviously got to put a bit of time and effort into learning how to use them effectively but I think it’s a great way to display the wireframes to the client.
Cheers,
Mike
25 Nov 10 - 07:27pm
Hey Ven,
Nice read. Wireframe aren’t dead at all they just got smarter. IMHO it’s all about putting the focus on the user experience and therefore wireframes need to become functional/interactive and turn into working prototypes. We have tried to bridge the gap between wireframing and prototyping and released an app by the name of HotGloo where you can easily add smart interactions to your static wireframes and generate a whole experience for you clients. And it works: there is no need of walking them through static wireframes anymore. They can log on to the project and for the first time experience how their future site is being structured and arranged, how information is placed and displayed and how the site comes to life.
If you are interested just browse by, try it out and tell me what you think of it.
Looking forward to hear from you,
Wolf
@HotGloo
26 Nov 10 - 12:49am
Hi Ven,
Thanks for responding to the article, even if it had you shaking your head with disbelief. I’m interested in how my technical background explains things? (I presume that having some technical know how makes my 6+ years UX design experience and HCI MSc null and void). In what way does my technical background explain things?
You say that wireframes put the focus on the user first and functionality and visual aspects second, but surely this has everything to do with the design process and not the tool? I can just as easily create a wireframe with little regard for users or functionality as one that focuses on both. I think that it’s also wrong to equate prototypes with code. Sure they can be coded but it’s just as easy (perhaps even easier) for me to change a prototype in Axure as it is a wireframe in Visio. In fact it’s even easier to change a sketch! I agree that wireframes can act as a useful set of central document for a design team but surely a prototype makes an even better reference point?
It’s interesting that a lot of the wireframe advocates out there seem to be heavily involved in Agency work where wireframes are deeply embedded (and costed) in the production process. I guess if you can charge by the level of documentation produced rather than the eventual design then wireframes still make a lot of sense!
26 Nov 10 - 12:03pm
Hi Neil, thanks for your reply. I probably should have elaborated, but my take is that people with technical backgrounds are coming from a different viewpoint to UX. Generally speaking the focus tends to be on functionality and “how will this be implemented?”. Likewise those with design backgrounds tend to focus on visual aspects and “how can I make this look great?”. My statement wasn’t meant to discount your UX experience at all
26 Nov 10 - 11:27am
Great article, and I agree with you. Hollywood blockbusters don’t get a frame of film shot without a script+storyboard being done first. It also serves as a reminder of who said what, when and surely aids in accessible websites that degrade gracefully as you start with first principles of usability and layout. As our rugby teacher at school said ‘proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance’ (my preparation consisted of feigning injury or just plain hiding while the teams were being picked, so performance was not affected, but I often think of his words. He was an alcoholic, you know).
Good work!
)
28 Nov 10 - 07:57pm
Nice article, I think theres definitely a half way house with all of this though.
Document wireframes / functional specs are as good as useless in most projects as the site undergoes so many amends during the development at some point they stop getting updated because the amend is deemed to minor / no one has the time to keep doing it, so at the end of the project the spec doesn\\\’t match the site. Making this more dynamic and easy to update would definitely help the process and there are a spectrum of tools appearing like Mike posts about.
I also think that prototyping using the right tools / even the base cms the team will use can be invaluable and a better approach. It doesn\\\’t need to be costly and it can quickly flag up any issues regarding functionality and help provide the client with much better timescales. They start using the product early on they understand better what they are getting, leaving less scope to get amends from them during the development period. They also become more active with their build making them feel a bigger part of the project, rather than brief -> specs -> build -> receive -> sad face (did I order this)
UX is a must, how its done I\\\’m sure will always be a hot topic
29 Nov 10 - 06:30pm
What? Wireframes and functional specs are as good as useless? Shocking ha ha. I know you’re probably referring to those “small” changes clients sometimes ask for, the ones they don’t see as time consuming or having a huge impact on the project. I would say it comes down to how much planning has been done and this proves the importance of signing off on wireframes. It’s up to us to stress this importance to clients and ensure they understand the implications of making changes after sign off. Otherwise the project can just get into a state of never endingness… that’s a word right
10 Feb 11 - 08:22am
Hi Ven! Thanks for a great post. I agree with you – especially on the statement “that people with technical backgrounds are coming from a different viewpoint to UX”. This fact seems to be one of the reasons why we’re discussing the wireframe vs. prototype subject in the first place. As a UX person (with a developer background) I’m very pleased with the ever growing knowledge of importance of user focus in the mind of developers and designers. However this focus call for an even bigger effort in communicating the purpose of different tools and upgrading our colleagues. Keep up the good work!
10 Feb 11 - 12:23pm
Thanks Ulrik glad you liked the post! Also very glad you can see my point about different views depending on what background you are coming from. This confusion is one of the reasons why wireframes should not be done by a designer or a developer. They should be done by us Information Architects or UX designers – people who can bring together other disciplines by putting the user at the center of a project