6 ms·

It says functionality is represented in a wireframe. Doesn't wireframe simply shows structure? That is, which elements goes where. The functionality is shown in

It says functionality is represented in a wireframe. Doesn't wireframe simply shows structure? That is, which elements goes where. The functionality is shown in a prototype.

Jaruzel 11y ago
You could argue that Wireframe shows functionality, whereas Prototype tests functionality.
- azazqadir 11y ago
  That makes sense.
- blowski 11y ago
  Exactly. As long as you share a common language in your team, and with your client, it doesn't really matter. If someone says "I need a wireframe/mockup/prototype" then clarify exactly what they are looking for - functionality? layout? content?
jasode 11y ago
Mateusz Warcholinski mentioned Balsamiq[1] as an example of his definition for a "wireframe" tool. Therefore, instead of trying to parse his description of "wireframe", it may be better to just look at Balsamiq's capabilities: https://balsamiq.com/ https://balsamiq.com/ To me, it looks like his idea of wireframe is something "clickable" ... such that it launches another fake page, but not functional. A Balsamiq/wireframe tool is something non-programmers like designers and business leads could use to communicate a UX/UI. [1]Mateusz Warcholinski wrote: "My favourite tool to do it: Balsamiq"
- dumbguy 11y ago
  Tad snarky.
  - jasode 11y ago
    I didn't intend it to be. I advised the questioner to simply do what I did myself : ignore the definition that Mateusz Warcholinski wrote which is open to misinterpretation (as this HN thread shows and Mateusz has acknowledged) and simply go to balsamiq.com. After studying Balsamiq, work backwards from that to get an idea of what he meant by "wireframe" and whether or not it has "functionality".
- stronglikedan 11y ago
  I use Balsamiq, and I quite like it. It is a wireframe tool, but also more. My typical workflow is to do the wireframe and get it approved, import images into the wireframe to turn it into a mockup and get that approved, then use the mockup to implmenent the prototype. I like that I can simulate functionality in the wireframe and mockup. In fact, I typically don't even know how I will implement the prototype until the mockup is complete with simulated functionality, because that's what I'll use to determine the implementation (for new projects only, of course).
weego 11y ago
You cannot define a structure without it implicitly acknowledging what functionality archetype will be associated with it. For example, even in a most basic wireframe of a web app if a wireframe showed a left column about 20% wide and 100% height anyone with any experience in software will instantly assume a hierarchical menu of some design. I would agree they aren't tightly coupled but there is definitely an association there that can't be completely separated.

It says functionality is represented in a wireframe. Doesn't wireframe simply shows structure? That is, which elements goes where. The functionality is shown in a prototype.

Jaruzel 11y ago

You could argue that Wireframe shows functionality, whereas Prototype tests functionality.

azazqadir 11y ago
That makes sense.
blowski 11y ago
Exactly. As long as you share a common language in your team, and with your client, it doesn't really matter. If someone says "I need a wireframe/mockup/prototype" then clarify exactly what they are looking for - functionality? layout? content?

jasode 11y ago

Mateusz Warcholinski mentioned Balsamiq[1] as an example of his definition for a "wireframe" tool. Therefore, instead of trying to parse his description of "wireframe", it may be better to just look at Balsamiq's capabilities: https://balsamiq.com/ https://balsamiq.com/ To me, it looks like his idea of wireframe is something "clickable" ... such that it launches another fake page, but not functional. A Balsamiq/wireframe tool is something non-programmers like designers and business leads could use to communicate a UX/UI. [1]Mateusz Warcholinski wrote: "My favourite tool to do it: Balsamiq"

dumbguy 11y ago
Tad snarky.
- jasode 11y ago
  I didn't intend it to be. I advised the questioner to simply do what I did myself : ignore the definition that Mateusz Warcholinski wrote which is open to misinterpretation (as this HN thread shows and Mateusz has acknowledged) and simply go to balsamiq.com. After studying Balsamiq, work backwards from that to get an idea of what he meant by "wireframe" and whether or not it has "functionality".
stronglikedan 11y ago
I use Balsamiq, and I quite like it. It is a wireframe tool, but also more. My typical workflow is to do the wireframe and get it approved, import images into the wireframe to turn it into a mockup and get that approved, then use the mockup to implmenent the prototype. I like that I can simulate functionality in the wireframe and mockup. In fact, I typically don't even know how I will implement the prototype until the mockup is complete with simulated functionality, because that's what I'll use to determine the implementation (for new projects only, of course).

weego 11y ago

You cannot define a structure without it implicitly acknowledging what functionality archetype will be associated with it. For example, even in a most basic wireframe of a web app if a wireframe showed a left column about 20% wide and 100% height anyone with any experience in software will instantly assume a hierarchical menu of some design. I would agree they aren't tightly coupled but there is definitely an association there that can't be completely separated.