This morning I came across an article posted on Twitter titled, "Wireframes are dead, long live rapid prototyping" My response was "This claim is idiotic." Here's why: "I don't think that word means what you think it means..."To the author's credit, he's talking about wireframes the artifact. His claim is that creating another set of documents between designer's sketches and a prototype to take to testing is cumbersome and not well suited for the growing demand of Agile UX design process. There are multiple problems with this claim:
- Wireframes (the artifact) are generally the best way to show managers and other non-technical stake holders what is actually going to be happening quickly and cheaply. They're also a great reference for "how does this work again?" style questions for designers and developers building a piece of software. Do you really want to have to pull up a prototype and navigate through it to see what it is you need to know? This is like saying, "you don't need the book, you can just watch the movie."
- Functional prototypes take longer to make. Applications like Axure and Balsamiq still generate wireframes, they just let you also string them together in a semi-interactive way. This isn't new, exciting methodology, we've been doing this with powerpoint and wireframes for years. Going to this kind of functional prototype from polished wireframes documents is a trival task as far as resource allocation goes.
- Designer's sketches are not often sufficient as an artifact to communicate the designer's intent. That's why we have comps and wireframes, not because they're just really fun to make or to justify our existence. It's the best way to get what's in our head into the heads of other people.