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):

I am secretly a wannabe information architect. I’m fascinated with the science behind user experience and design and love the thinking that goes into IA, even if my mind isn’t quite cut out for the rigorous organizational aspect to the job. But I still really enjoy reading IA blogs and articles, because I feel that the learnings of IAs can easily translate to all communications, especially interactive media but print as well.

So I always enjoy listening to the podcasts from IDEA, the big annual information architecture conference. Some of it is a little over my head, but I always feel like I learn a lot from them.

At IDEA 08 in Chicago last week, Aradhana Goel from the famous design firm IDEO spoke about an interesting shift in how her company has to think about design problems today. After more than a decade of touting user-centric design, based on the concept of empathy with users and their needs, Goel says, it’s now necessary to think about not only individual users but also consider the collective — to think about what these individuals are doing together with thousands of other people, and the technological and social trends that enable design innovation.

Trendwatching isn’t anything new, but Goel says this is a shift in how user-centric design is considered. Anyone who’s ever gone through a Web design or redesign project knows the importance of user testing. And that user testing typically focuses on individuals: we set up profiles of typical (often fictional) users to get inside their heads, study their demographics and psychographics, and learn what drives them. Then we test those assumptions with a handful of individual users, interviewing them about their reactions and responses.

When we talk about the “users” of our Web sites (or the “audience” for our communications in general), what we really mean are the individual people we serve. When I write for an audience, I try to get inside of the head of one physician, or home buyer, or patient, or designer. What are their pain points? What is their environment? What emotions factor in to their decision-making?

But Goel suggests that these days it’s necessary to go above and beyond the individual to address and find solutions for design problems. In this era where social networks, community and collaboration are spreading fast and furiously, connecting and reconnecting people in so many different new ways and people are more and more open to it. At the same time, technology trends are changing so quickly that it’s impossible to solve a design problem without looking at how technology can and should “enable” the solution.

Today, Goel says, her company encounters more open-ended and “intangible” challenges than ever. “In our past work, whether it was a health device or a library design, there was a problem at hand,” she told the audience at IDEA. “People weren’t coming to the library. Our challenge was how do you improve the experience. And we knew the constraints.

“Now the problems are more open-ended. Clients ask, ‘We’re second. How do we become first?’ When we have no design constraints, where do we look?”

Goel says it’s important to consider individual needs in context with how people are moving collectively, and how larger trends are impacting them, in order to find a starting place for tackling these open-ended challenges. As an example of what she means by that, she provided a number of examples of societal, technology and business trends that have influence over a user’s experience. A few of these include:

• The “culture of networks” – the ability to leverage your personal or professional network for support, to contribute to a community dedicated to social change, or to collaborate on innovation through open source communities
• Nomadism — being able to communicate and work from anywhere in the world
• Sustainable living — the combination of changing behaviors while making personal statements
• A “platform approach” to technology, offering flexibility and choice, a la the iPhone
• Loyalty-building services, a la Amazon.com or Netflix
• Anytime, anywhere conversations using endless numbers of channels

The “user” is still at the center, but the world spinning around him or her has to factor in considerably for the ultimate experience to be relevant and to truly solve the challenge.

Download Goel’s podcast and her PDF presentation, or visit the IDEA 08 site.