Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Something always bothered me: why using "sketch-like hand-drawn pencil" like style for that kind of tools ?

I understand that "wireframing" is some kind of "brainstorming" tool, so it is used with a pencil and a whiteboard in a meeting room and require to draw/erase fast iteratively... so it's the "right" tool for this job...

But as soon as you use a computer instead of a pencil, why not have a "realistic" and "clean" look instead of this kind of quick-and-dirty sketch-like style? It's an honest question

Is it because designers are most used to this style? Is it because it make more clearly appear the essential points (for example: a list) and avoid discussion like "is this text exactly in this color ?"

The reason that I've heard used repeatedly is that a shocking percentage of folks who aren't Technology producers can't separate visual quality from "doneness" of a project. If you show some business folks something that looks like it works, they'll mentally update the project to "Nearly done!" and then everything else after that becomes "Unreasonable delays."
Yes. This is precisely it. There aren’t two sides to this, just people that haven’t themselves experienced this absolutely inevitability. These sorts of inexact-looking tools are worth their weight in gold for that reason alone.
loading story #41519615
loading story #41520814
This is unfortunately very true. You also have to be very careful with word/phrase choice in discussion about future work: people often hear “what we could do, is…” as “there is already a full feature that allows you to configure the tool to do…”.

You really have to drill home that ideas and possibilities are just that, and not concrete features that they could start using tomorrow.

Why is this unfortunate? If it weren’t true and people could separate the things, would we really be better off?

I ask because this guy s a common lament, but I’ve never figured out why. It shouldn’t be a surprise or (to me) disappointment that the fidelity of a communication also carries signal about the status.

loading story #41526485
loading story #41529664
There is definitely this, but also: if it looks "refined", people start getting attached to what they see, and it affects how they react to the final product.

Any change from that haphazard throwaway with nice colors is suddenly a change they have opinions about, because it feels like a change.

If you show them something that's obviously not what will ship, they don't get as attached.

---

This is also partly a "most people don't understand the design process" thing, and just how much reworking and restarting is generally necessary to get an actually-good end result. If they see hundreds of mockups (or even sketches), they'll wonder why you haven't made hundreds of products, rather than those being merely tools used to think along the way.

loading story #41519417
loading story #41520786
loading story #41521826
loading story #41525048
loading story #41522273
loading story #41525045
A slightly different take.

If everything is either an obvious sketch, or pixel perfect you can get decent feedback, but a design that is just a little off in jarring ways will distract people from the functionality or design intention.

loading story #41519509
loading story #41519134
loading story #41519035
If I draw something in balsamiq, I’m typically “forgiven” for how basic the design looks. Try and do the same in let’s say MS paint and you could be called unprofessional and lazy. But this style seems to communicate strongly that this is a basic barebones wireframe.

Honestly it also looks better.

loading story #41519828
loading story #41519045
loading story #41525062
loading story #41521427
loading story #41518912
loading story #41523320
loading story #41522842
loading story #41523932
loading story #41536594
loading story #41518887