| > I consider UI mockups the perfect usage for visual programming environments. It can be, though the type of mockup I find more useful for discussion is much lower fidelity than that. The feedback and discussion around a mockup is related to the fidelity. Low fidelity, such as whiteboard or large sharpie drawings, will garner feedback that discusses whether this UI even makes sense at all, if there's a different approach, or how feasible it is to present everything this way. Mid-fidelity, such as digital mockups, will often focus more on the actual layout, text labels and contents. High-fidelity, such as a working prototype or something done in the actual environment (visual programming environment, or even as working HTML+Javascript+CSS), will often get into a discussion about font sizes and icon choice. If you build a high-fidelity mockup when you really want to have the low-fidelity discussion you're doing everyone a disservice. Even if your team can see past it and still has the appropriate discussion, it's a waste of time. For that reason, even when my mockup is basically a small modification to something that exists already, I'll often screenshot it, and then freehand draw (MS Paint style) overtop of it with my modifications, using ugly 2-4px wide lines. I've tried both, but consistently found the feedback is better that way -- even when the target audience is a bunch of developers that should be able to see past it. |
Seems like you've done quite a bit of this type of work, I've the exact opposite. I guess it makes sense that the fewer data points the clients are given, the more they focus on the broader picture.
Would you often start with a napkin drawing-esque mockup, and add detail to it while cooperating with the client, or would you sometimes start with a finished HTML+JS+CSS prototype and change things up as they request?