Actually the ability to model (complex) interactivity is far higher (different league) in Axure than in Illustrator and InDesign. However, these features of Axure are under utilised in UX work - many people wrongly believe that Axure is just a wire-framing tool like Visio or Omingraffle, and require training toi (fully) exploit Axure's powerful interactivity modelling capability. Likewise, a well structured Axure project (most Axure projects aren't well structured) is highly normalised so changes 'ripple through the design automatically. Further, Axure can manage multiple designers working on the same file at the same time (including revision control), which neither Illustrator nor InDesign can do (coherently.
If the speed of getting a prototype was the only factor, then maybe yes, your listed tools might be the best, but if you also have to take other factors in consideration like cost of software, the learning curve of the software or the size of projects, then maybe they won't be your best tools.
Speed is not the Alpha and Omega if you want to product quality.
This correct, speed is just on of many factors to be considered here; quality eg, is another (which, is also typically better with modern prototyping tools). Organisations need to consider if the investment (in training , consultancy and organisational disruption) in moving to modern tools is justified - In my experience it usually is! I will be writing more on this exact topic in a forth coming major article in UPA magazine within the context of integrating UCD into Agile methods.
Complete resonance! I could not agree more to the fundamentals listed in your article. Paper technique or "back of the napkin" really works to quickly get started, explore more freely, and gather immediate feedback from your focused user groups and stake holders. I have experienced that tools and "screen" constraints come in your way of doing the necessary, and hence add to the noise.
Thanks.
Excelsior! Great article indeed. My only regret is that only Axure and iRise are the only two worthwhile tools available. I've been pushing [guerilla] prototyping within my institution for the last few years and my business and IT partners are now beginning to see the benefits of "why we should" rather than "why should we".
A concern is that where ever Axure goes iRise is always right behind them threatening a lawsuit.
Web Usability: An introduction to user experience
May 21-22, London: A fast-paced, hands-on, 2-day immersion seminar that shows you how to apply a range of user experience tools and techniques to real-world web design projects. More details
Free newsletter
Over 7,000 people get our monthly newsletter. Sign up now and download your free guide to usability test moderation.
User Experience Articles
Our most popular articles
Our most commented articles
Our most recent articles
- May 1: The Wizard of Oz guide to usability testing mobile prototypes
- Apr 2: How to tell managers they’re wrong about UX research and still get hired
- Mar 6: Lean ways to test your new business idea
- Feb 6: What makes a great UX practitioner? Hint: It's not what you think
- Jan 4: 20 things you can do this year to improve your user’s experience
Great article. I totally agree. I hate when I see people starting with Balsamiq and using the excuse that it looks sketchy. It's still not as fluid as paper.
I love Axure for quick prototypes that need interactivity. However when deeper exploration is necessary and specific interactions need to be drawn my favorite tools are paper then Illustrator and InDesign. I use InDesign to pull in the Illustrator files as which remain linked to the origional and annotate them in a way that I adapted from eightshapes.com. It's great because if I update the Illustrator file InDesign will see the change and can automatically update all the pages for me.