Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

konty.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#151

Post by mhuffman »

com wrote: post #145
mhuffman wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had prospective clients do it from non-interactive graphic mock-ups -- just pictures! They assumed that was the hard part and just "wiring up the buttons" would be a short simple task. Those were frustrating discussions.

Devil’s advocate … why shouldn’t this be true? That’s how HyperCard worked, right?

In this particular case, there were user accounts, listings of items per user, calculators of various sort, multiple API integrations, and on and on. They understood by the end of the discussion, but seeing an image of something that looked complete was enough to trick their mind into thinking a lot of development work had occurred when, in fact, none had occurred. Only preliminary graphic design had occurred. This was earlier in my career. I typically use wire-frames or zoomed-in detail images now along with starting the discussion by letting them know that these are just graphic ideas, there has been no development yet, we are just at the stage that we want to be sure we are matching their vision.

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#152

Post by edmundsauto »

dspillett wrote: post #85
estsauver wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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.

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#153

Post by [deleted] »

estsauver wrote: post #74
olivierduval wrote: post #71

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…

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."

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#154

Post by johnchristopher »

estsauver wrote: post #74
olivierduval wrote: post #71

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…

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."

I almost got burned out from this, this year. Never again will I use clean and production-ready assets for prototypes submitted to decision makers.

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#155

Post by mitchbob »

olivierduval wrote: post #71

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…

One of the most valuable things you can do with early prototypes is have prospective users try them, to see whether they're understandable and meet users' needs. When a prototype looks unfinished, users understand that it can be changed, and you can collaborate with them and explore ideas for making the prototype better.

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#157

Post by mionhe »

edmundsauto wrote: post #152
dspillett wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunate because it's relatively easy now to mock-up the pretty part well enough to be mistaken for the real thing. Which people who don't have experience in this field then do, and get often get confused or upset even.

Example of this from another industry: working in manufacturing, a client wouldn't listen to our explanations about why their part wasn't ready to be molded in plastic. (lot's of design issues that would make it impossible to get out of the mold or lead to extreme cosmetic imperfections). To prove their point that their part designs were ready, they held up a 3d print of their part and said, "See? It's right here! You just have to do this!" This led to a half hour of answering questions before they started to understand that the two fabrication processes were very different and had different requirements.

I think the unfortunate part is really the time you have to sink into helping someone understand that's often unpaid, in my experience.

Re: Show HN: Konty – A Balsamiq-alternative lo-fi wireframe tool for modern apps

#160

Post by dspillett »

edmundsauto wrote: post #152
dspillett wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that it is easy to give one part of the communication, the visual, more fidelity than the rest, but that part is what people laugh into no matter what you communicate by other means (verbal, written).

So we, unfortunately, have to make effort to dumb down, or at least carefully manage, the fidelity of that part.

Post reply on HN