Nov 16 2009
Once again, 37signals posted a tidbit on why, for them, Photoshop doesn't cut it. And as expected, the 37s fanboys have agreed that HTML works better for UI design. A few have actually disagreed, and a few have stayed neutral. While I have a boatload of respect for 37s (we use their products), I'm sure they're successful because they've found methods that work for them (among other reasons of course). If you've read Getting Real then you know that they're all for keeping it simple and nimble. And yes, the book also is about doing it differently. It obviously has worked for them. Can it work for others? Abso-freaking-lutely.
The problem, however, isn't the idea behind their methodology. It's that too many will take it as gospel. In my view, sometimes Photoshop is the right choice for UI, sometimes it's not. 37signals has no "client" – they create web products. Web agencies (yep, they used to be one) have clients (duh). And as tiring as it is to hear it, or read it (or write it), every client is different. Project goals are different, budgets, needs, etc. Thinking that a single, particular process or tool will work for every client is setting up a trap for yourself. Having a general process and methodology and being able to take your process (and your tools) and adjust them to meet the needs of the client and the project is a much better approach. In fact, I think that's part of what's at the heart of Getting Real. More importantly, though, your process and your tools should be completely independent of each other!
So, to my fellow designers and developers, I say to you, stop focusing on the tools. Whether you do your wireframes in HTML, OmniGraffle, Photoshop or with crayons, it really doesn't matter much. What matters is whether or not what you're doing is going to be understood and valued by your client and (hopefully) lead them to further success.