Ok, so I'm sure Wilde wouldn't be over joyed at his work being used in the context of web development, but he had a point and it applies to the wireframe process. Yes, wireframes can limit creativity but they also limit scope creep. So should we use them and what other solutions are there?
I use wireframes a lot and find them pretty useful for defining functionality for developers, keeping a project in scope and helping clients to understand functionality. Plus they are good for understanding user interaction before a build.
The problem with them is that not only do they limit creativity/innovation in house but clients also can find it difficult to think of wireframes as just defining functional spec rather than design, making it hard for them to except new layouts/designs. Another problem is that often the wireframing process can mean that an Information Architect can end up defining a site's functionality with little involvement from the rest of the team - who do after all hold a lot of useful information.
So what are the solutions to these problems? One idea is to abandon wireframes and give clients, designers and developers a written spec with a written visual guide e.g. content area should take 50% of the page. Although this is it can make it easy to miss functionality out of a spec. A wireframe can be used as a "thinking device", before writing out the tech spec to help solve this problem, but functionality can still be easy to miss in a build if a spec is simply written down. Wireframe abandonment perhaps isn't the perfect solution for the client either - wireframes help them to visualise functions and ideas too. It can also help the client get stakeholder buy in for sign off.
So if wireframe abandonment isn't the perfect solution, we need another solution. Maybe it's the approach we take to wireframes that needs to be reviewed. How detailed should they be? Just how much do we pin down functionality? Who should be involved? Who shouldn't be involved? When should they be involved? How are wireframes presented to the client? How much of the site is wireframed?
It would be a nice have "one solution fits all" ideal. That's not going to happen, so it would be good to have a solution that works most of the time. I still don't know what that is - I would like to know if there are any other good alternatives to wireframes being used out there though. I will investigate and experiment!
If you haven't come across wireframes before read this: "Introduction to wireframes" and for further reading go to Wireframes Magazine.
My recent revelation is that open source/off the shelf is, in general, better. It gives the client much better value for money and it should give an agency more free time to innovate rather than reinventing the wheel.
Good for the client
Good for the agency
Good for the client
- Cost
As client you get more for your buck. With plenty of ready made plugins ready to be popped in at minimal cost, why would you pay to get these things especially built for you? It's also likely that clients can cut down on training costs by employing content editors who already know their system. - Choice
If I'm going to buy shampoo, ideally I want a carefully selected range suiting all possible hair needs from frizzy, silky smooth to super duppa 80s go go volume. I don't want to wait for somebody to mix up my own special shampoo or indeed pay for it. I need the money for the conditioner too. - No tie in
Best of all the clients are not tied in. There are loads of agencies using the same CMSs. A client can keep using the same agency because they are good not because they are locked into using their bespoke system.
Good for the agency
- Cost
Think of a open source/off the shelf system as your P.A. doing all the jobs you don't want to. Because you have a library of ready made plugins to choose from for all the "normal" tasks, you have time to actually put some of those more exciting innovative ideas into action. Hopefully that means clients will come back for more too. - Support
Whether you are using an open source system or a "paid for" system, you get a support network. You no longer just have to rely on your internal staff for the answer, again giving them more time to think up "new stuff". It also means you can employ people who will instantly know the systems you are using - great when you have that big job to be finished and your head honcho developer has just caught the flu. - Your client isn't tied in
Yes, this is a good thing. It challenges you to keep a closer eye on the competition and push yourselves to give the best client service possible.
CMS systems are now pretty standard for any company's website - they bascially let clients control their own content. For a designer this can be the equivalent of sending first your child off to school and hoping that all that hard work won’t be undone by the spotty kid teaching them to say c*nt on the first day.
There are plenty of pros in letting clients control their own content but it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The last thing you want is for a slick cool site to be ruined by a pixelated,stretched JPEG and badly formatted text. I’ve been thinking about this and believe it’s absolutely essential that everyone using CMS systems aren’t only trained on how to use them technically but also how to use them to good effect. I have perhaps thought about this a little too much and come with the following analogy.
“We are landscape gardeners who spend days cutting the hedges, trimming the grass, installing the water feature and preparing the compost so it's all just right. We then hand it over to the client, to plant the flowers in the beds. If they know nothing about gardening, all the flowers die or look out of place and any visitor’s attention will be drawn to the crappy flowers rather than the marvellous water feature and neatly trimmed grass. As expert gardeners, it’s our responsibility to teach them to dig out the weeds and how to make flowers blossom.”
There are plenty of pros in letting clients control their own content but it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. The last thing you want is for a slick cool site to be ruined by a pixelated,stretched JPEG and badly formatted text. I’ve been thinking about this and believe it’s absolutely essential that everyone using CMS systems aren’t only trained on how to use them technically but also how to use them to good effect. I have perhaps thought about this a little too much and come with the following analogy.
“We are landscape gardeners who spend days cutting the hedges, trimming the grass, installing the water feature and preparing the compost so it's all just right. We then hand it over to the client, to plant the flowers in the beds. If they know nothing about gardening, all the flowers die or look out of place and any visitor’s attention will be drawn to the crappy flowers rather than the marvellous water feature and neatly trimmed grass. As expert gardeners, it’s our responsibility to teach them to dig out the weeds and how to make flowers blossom.”