As with many books and classes that begin with the words “The Right Way to …”, the moral of this pre-conference workshop put on by four well-known UX thought leaders was that — you guessed it — there is no “right way” to wireframe.

But during this four-hour workshop, we as participants did witness how lots and lots of sketching, pitching and critiquing, and collaborative problem-solving can turn out several different approaches that all solved the same problem in different and creative ways.

Churning out ideas — lots of ideas
I took the workshop because I increasingly am playing the role of an IA and UX designer, and see it as an important part of the content strategy work I’m doing. But I’m first and foremost a word person, and naturally freeze up when called upon to visually organize and prioritize ideas — terrified I’m going to do it wrong and not quite confident in the process I use.

I learn by doing and seeing others do, so hands-on workshops are ideal for me, and this one was no different. The first thing we did was break into four different groups (some of which were large enough that they broke into subgroups) based on wireframing tool of preference. I use Omnigraffle for site maps and (I was embarrassed to admit, until I learned later in the session that many others were in the same boat) often turn to Adobe InDesign for wireframing simply because it’s comfortable. But I’ve been very interested in Axure for some time, and now that the software has a Mac beta version I wanted to learn more about how to use it — so I aligned myself with the Axure group. (Other participants grouped into groups using Omnigraffle, FireWorks, and Balsmiq. The point of all that was that there are many different ways to skin a cat, and they all work fine.)

We received basic requirements — personas for two different types of users, as well as basic background about the organization we were designing for, and some rough and somewhat vague must-haves, leaving things mostly open to interpretation. Then it was time to sketch.

Six to eight thumbnail sketches. Five minutes. No rules. GO. Of course I froze. I’m a verbal thinker, and would much rather have listed requirements and ideas first, before starting to draw. But the sketching was a fantastic exercise for two reasons:

• It got us thinking in terms of blocking out areas, shapes, relationships, rather than thinking detail — because there was no time for detail. In retrospect, I think about the Graphic Design Cookbook and its basic building blocks inspiring designers to explore thousands of possibilities.
• It got us used to the idea that sketching is the first thing UX designers do, and that they do it for a long time. They start with thumbnails and move on to more detailed sketches, but they may go through dozens, even hundreds, of pieces of paper before they are happy enough with a solution to put it into wireframing software. Thinking on paper helps designers stay loose and open to ideas, and makes evolution much more possible than it would be in the software.

When our workshop leaders showed their wireframing processes in videos at the end of the workshop, I was actually relived to see that one of them is a verbal thinker like me — he starts with writing out all his ideas and requirements in long, messy lists. But all four of them sketched and sketched for days before moving on. Sketching is essential.

Design becomes collective
Next, we engaged in a process similar to what burgeoning architects go through in architecture school: “design studio,” where everyone gets a chance to put his or her sketches up on the wall and pitch concepts. As a team we agreed on which pieces we like, and then we started sketching layouts based on the elements and concepts that worked for us.

At that point, we took our sketches to another group and presented to them, collecting their positive and critical feedback that we took back to our table to further iterate the design. Before our eyes we watched our wireframes become further refine. As somebody who tends to work alone, I always enjoy being reminded of how collaboration and feedback can continue to make a solution better and better.

We regrouped, drafted our final sketches, and then it was time to design the wireframes in Axure. While our group’s noble volunteer worked the software, the workshoppers passed out beers, which we all continued to sip as each group presented our electronic wireframes and talked through our solutions.

Having walked and talked through the process, I feel more comfortable wearing a wireframer’s shoes now. Especially inspiring were the videos documenting the unique process of each of the UXers running the workshop … confirming that there is, indeed, no single “right way” to wireframe, but that it all involves a lot of iteration, noodling, paper, sticky notes and time.

Russ Unger (@russu):

Will Evans (@semanticwill):

Todd Zaki Warfel (@zakiwarfel):

The always-brilliant site Boxes and Arrows recently posted an essay on the dangers of designing without bringing in the content writer. The piece, authored by a designer no less, included a beautiful example of what happens when a Web page template is created lovingly by the interface designer, only to have the live content come in at the end and muck it all up. (See the image here. You’ll laugh. You’ll cry.)

The author’s strong recommendation was that designers should consult with the copywriter early in the process to make sure pages are designed to account for real content. Sound advice, but it got me pondering — at what point did the idea that we start with content become a novel concept?

When content was king
It used to be, not so very long ago, that content and design were not a chicken-or-egg proposition. Copy came first. Design was the act of presenting that copy in a way that was easy and enjoyable to read and understand. From my magazine publishing days to my early career in marcom, the Golden Rule was to write first, think visually later. (It’s one of the reasons that many classically trained journalists and writers have no skills, and little interest, in design. The written word once was the center of everything.)

But times of course have changed. One reality is simply that people read and experience communications differently now, as a result of an overload of information and changing communications platforms. Everyone balks at large blocks of words, no matter how gorgeously crafted they are. Modern copywriters understand that, though, and are prepared to write accordingly.

Imagine how my world turned upside down the first time I worked for a VP of marketing who insisted that the marcom department start with design. The graphic designer would do the layout first, then I would write copy to “fit.” I fought the process with every ounce of my soul. It went against the grain of everything I had ever learned. He used the argument that I presented above: that people don’t read, that design is everything, that content needs to fit within the boundaries of presentation, not the other way around.

The process problem
To this day I still don’t agree with him, but my belief now is that this has become an issue of process, especially as we as marketers produce more of our communications electronically than in print. Web site design especially has pushed content further down the chronological food chain. Designing page templates early has become critical for building a site in a content management system (CMS); therefore, information architecture and visual design are slated for the first 1/3 of a Web site design project, while content (the stuff that gets “poured in” to the CMS) comes in the last 1/3 of the project, simply because process-wise there are so many other things to deal with first.

On the print side, companies take a similar tact to their collateral systems, striving for so much consistency that they design first, and ask questions about what’s necessary content-wise later.

There are two primary dangers with this approach:

1. Design #fail. Illustrated by the link above, once “real” content is loaded into a Web content management system or flowed into a print layout, the original and pure intent of the design is compromised (i.e., the page looks crappy). This can be an occasional problem on individual pages, but the real danger is that it can affect the whole site or system. One of my projects involved editorial updates for a home page that was designed before the company had a content strategy for the page; much of the editorial team’s time involved trying to make the content work within strict design limitations. Neither the design nor the content were all that they could have been.
2. Vapid copy. The design remains beautiful, but the copy says nothing. When the team focuses too hard on what something looks like without considering content, you’re in danger of delivering absolutely nothing of substance to your customer. A client of mine recently showed me the spectacular capabilities brochure their agency had designed for them: specialty paper, precious die cuts, amazing typography, lovely photography. Then the client, a sales and marketing person, told me: “I can’t use it. I had to recreate my own sales sheets to take to clients and try to make them look like this brochure. It says absolutely nothing about what we do or how we’re different. It’s just fluff.”

Everyone all aboard the peace train
Yet as a professional who plays the roles of both a project manager and a copywriter, I know how difficult it can be to start with content. The world we live in today simply no longer accommodates the write first, make-it-pretty later approach (which is condescending and erroneous in its own right). Content and design must work together from day one. Even in proven, recognized process flows (such as with large-scale Web site design) there are some slight tweaks we could all make to more harmoniously help these worlds work together. Some examples:

• Write real (not sample) new content before starting visual design. That doesn’t mean you have to have all 300 pages of a new Web site completely drafted. But understanding the structure, flow and content of a page before designing it is essential for designers. A really well-designed Web site considers the “frame” of the page as well as the inside page layout. Think about five or six main kinds of content you plan to create (about us pages, product pages, catalog pages as examples) and write them, using your planned tone and style. Avoid greeked text as much as possible.
• Think about the whole package before beginning anything. The copywriter, designer, creative director/project manager and business subject matter expert should all be on the same page before beginning. Copywriters and designers need to be allies. A writer needs to understand the vision for the design, and vice versa.
• Work together harmoniously. Remember that in the end, you’re creating communications for your customers (and for your salespeople to help them reach those customers). No one on the creative team should bristle if copy needs to be cut or rewritten. Likewise, no one should feel offended if design ideas go by the wayside due to a shift in direction with copy. In the words of Don Draper on last night’s episode of “Mad Men”: “You’re not an artist Peggy. You solve problems. Leave some tools in your toolbox.” Work to make content and design support each other.

The visionary Guy Kawasaki guest-blogged on innovation over at Sun Microsystems’ site last year. In his final post on the site, he offered a piece of advice that has continued to resonate with me, and in a way has become the little mantra that I whisper to myself as I work each day. His simplistic recommendation? Try stuff.

This was one of five lessons Guy says he’s learned as an entrepreneur, and all the lessons were good. But I particularly like this one, especially when it comes to the way we communicate.

Often, companies suffer from one of two problems in their brand communications:

• They lose sight of what they’re trying to achieve, and fall into comfortable patterns — or even bad habits. They forget what the audience cares about. They forget that their customers are people. And they forget what their company stands for, the overall journey of which they are part and their role in moving the company ahead in that journey. Or:
• They get so caught up in strategy that they become paralyzed. It’s impossible for them to move forward, and when they do, their communications become the equivalent of the legislative bills that grow more bloated and corrupted as they move through the legislative process, losing the purity of their intentions as more people tack on their own special interests. To paraphrase my former boss: when a committee of marketing people came together to design the horse, they instead ended up with the camel.

Whatever the situation, it’s easy to get stuck, and to stay within the boundaries of the familiar and proven because it’s easier, safer or because it’s working. But to Guy’s point: change happens when people take risks and try new stuff. “Luck favors the people who try stuff, not simply think and analyze,” he writes.

How do you know if what is working today always will — or that something won’t work better? Keep throwing “stuff” into the water to see what floats. Whether your stuff be new or borrowed or reinvented, it serves one important purpose in that it keeps you on your toes: it opens your eyes to new possibilities, keeps you attune to what’s going on around you, and helps you clarify your purpose as you think about it again and again from different perspectives. And however you look at it, that’s good stuff.

Apple, the exalted computer brand, faced off recently against an equally beloved, well-known, and arguably Bigger Apple: New York City. When New York filed a trademark application to protect a new logo mark for its sustainability initiative, GreeNYC, last year, Apple swooped in to file a formal opposition to the trademark. The company based its challenge on the premise that:

Since at least as early as 1977, Opposer has extensively promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold goods and services in connection with a family of trademarks consisting, in whole or in part, of the word APPLE and a visual equivalent of the word, to wit a logo depicting a stylized apple …

Here’s the world-famous Apple logo, next to New York City’s new “green” Big Apple logo:

News outlets and bloggers everywhere were scandalized that Apple was throwing its weight around in a case where the two logos were so clearly different from one another, and where New York so clearly had not only historical precedence (with its unofficial nickname as well as its use of the apple symbol in tourism since the 1970s) but also with better intentions (GreeNYC is an earth-friendly not-for-profit initiative, Apple a greedy corporate profiteer known for being bratty about its intellectual property). Tech reporters and bloggers, usually enamored with Apple’s spectacular design and spotless brand, took pleasure in an “Apple sucks” lynching.

It was one of those moments when consumers, who think of their beloved brands as good, trustworthy friends, feel betrayed; that they couldn’t imagine their ultra-cool friend could become a bully and pick on the underdog. Having built a brand based on friendly, intuitive, simple, attractive design (not to mention catchy music, funny commercials and an approach to technology that’s the antithesis of its arch-rival), Apple shocks and disappoints when it does exactly what any corporation in its shoes would do: defend its trademark.

After several days of misleading reports, several blogs, many of them written by lawyers, stepped in to point out that Apple was not in fact suing New York City, as was initially reported by major news outlets, but had done something very basic for a corporation invested in monitoring and defending its IP: it formally opposed the issuing of a trademark for another apple-based logo, as part of standard procedure that is part of the very public trademark review and decision process at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Keeping tabs on similar logomarks and taking measures to protect its own trademark is by nature part of Apple’s responsibility as a trademark holder — filing these oppositions helps solidify their own trademark ownership, so that if necessary they can later prove usage in a court of law.

This is one of those cases, then, where Apple’s status as a major corporation — with its own heavily staffed corporate legal department — comes into direct conflict with Apple’s status as a major brand. The company was acting in its best interest as a matter of course. It’s very likely that the opposition (which isn’t published by the USPTO, and was only made public when Wired.com got its hands on it) never even came to the attention of the brand or corporate communications teams at Apple, but was simply filed as a routine measure. Only when it leaked and got picked up by the blogosphere did it become not only a PR nightmare but a brand crisis for the company: yet another example that our beloved Apple isn’t as benevolent as we all believed.

I just got back from NYC myself and spent my time there feeling miffed that Apple Inc. was picking on poor beleaguered New York, feeling the dispute was ridiculous. In the fight between the two, as faithful as I am to Apple the brand, I was ready to take NYC’s side. But when I started doing research, I actually discovered that, though the nickname “the Big Apple” is known worldwide, there is actually no recognized apple logo for the city. I thought there was, but it was the “I [Heart] New York” logo I remembered instead. New York used apple imagery in tourism campaigns in the 1970s, but in terms of a visual brand there isn’t anything that’s been used universally. In fact, in his history of the use of the phrase “the Big Apple,” Barry Popik uses newspaper columns and building signs from the early 20th century as the only imagery of the famous nickname:

So really Apple Inc. has a case: they’re not disputing New York’s use of the “apple” name but the use of an apple logo, which the company claims is causing confusion in consumers’ minds. If NYC hasn’t laid claim to a visual “Big Apple” brand in any consistent way for 80-odd years, it’s not completely unreasonable for Apple to challenge NYC’s trademark application. But by doing so it unwittingly wanders into “evil empire” territory, and if there’s one thing consumers hate, it’s territorial corporate grinches.

In a bizarr-o interview (possibly made more so by the fact it was in a German magazine), designer Philippe Starck expressed all the self-disgust and fatalism of a person who needs a career change or a very long vacation. Starck declared that “design is dead,” that nothing he ever did (not even his ridiculous robot juice squeezer, evidently) has ever meant anything and that the design industry is destined to disappear altogether. “In future there will be no more designers. The designers of the future will be the personal coach, the gym trainer, the diet consultant,” he said nonsensically. I’m not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean, but I look forward to watching that trend emerge.

Link courtesy of J.Go.