[timcarlock]

I agree, though I'd offer a counter-point to the implied idea that tools like this stifle exploration and creativity.

I'm an engineer who also loves design. I've read a lot of the books (including the one referenced), I know some concepts and terminology, and I understand the general process — but I'll never be a professional designer. My knowledge is limited, and I find most design tools so complex they actually get in the way of problem exploration and creativity.

For people like me, this tools removes the friction which actually prevents me from being more focused on the valuable parts of the design process. I can more easily discover and learn new concepts, and ultimately spend more time being creative and exploring the problem space.

[skydhash]

The issue is that UI design has different constraints compared to general graphic design, just like product design is not sculplture. Most UI designers only care about the visual aspects while neglecting the interactive aspect.

A whiteboard or a wireframing software would be better, because it lets you focus first on the interactive part. And once that’s solved, the visual part is easier.

[pilgrim0]

There’s no conflict here. Using a tool to automate what you have validated to be the trivial parts of a production process is the proper use of the tool. Professional designers also use this bias. For instance, I might recognize that creating a custom font or illustration is not core to my solution, so I can employ an off the shelf font or illustration and focus, say, in the written content. Same principle. The problem is most people won’t even acknowledge or validate the essential aspects of the solution and just iterate mindlessly.