For this release we took a leap of faith and went nearly an entire year without releasing any real product updates (in comparison we released about once a month in 2013). At our annual retreat last year after not releasing any feature updates in nearly six months Peldi had to reassure us that we were still doing the right thing and to stay the course.
And fortunately people were still buying our product.
This post is all about how we got to Balsamiq Mockups 3. It was a windy, bumpy road, full of changes in direction, fits and starts, delays, and uncertainty about the final product. (So, in other words, a pretty typical software development project.) But when we neared the end it all came together rather beautifully in a way that validated our organic and intuition (rather than market)-driven approach.
2011-2013: Mockups “Pro”
Long before any planning or design started we referred to the next generation of our product internally as “Mockups Pro.” This was convenient because we all agreed that our next major version would be Pro, even though we had different ideas about what “Pro” actually meant. Pro was either an abbreviation for Projects (bundling multiple files and assets into a single project file) or Professional (a separate, more feature-rich version of our product for heavy users) depending on who you talked to.
In late 2013 Peldi decided Balsamiq Mockups version 2 was stable and feature-rich enough to start something new.
Mike had already been working on a UI overhaul as a side project and kicked things off with a comp to give us some inspiration.
The “Pro” idea and Mike’s vision of improving the appearance and standardizing the interaction provided the fertile ground for us to start our next adventure.
We knew that the next version was not just about adding features or a fresh coat of paint.
But we knew that the next version was not just about adding features or a fresh coat of paint. So we began with some important questions that kept us focused throughout the project.
From a wiki page created in 2013:
How we can evolve it [Mockups] without breaking from what’s become “the ethos of Mockups?” There is a definite character we want to hold on to, while maturing it. People want that.
What things should not change on the surface?
What things should not change about the experience?
What things are so effective that they create “Flow” when using the app?
What are the things that contribute to a sense of effortless and ease (and effortless effort), as if “the wireframes just make themselves?”
These questions and some heavy discussions lead us to a set of design principles and the following guidelines for our next project:
Stick to our basic identity (that had made Mockups successful in the first place)
Make it easier to use (especially by reducing friction around pain points)
Introduce professional and power-user features without overwhelming the UI
And, with that, we moved on to…
2013-2014: Mockups 2.5
We knew that before we got any further we had to settle the “Pro” debate once and for all. Should we create two separate versions of our product, one for occasional users and another with more bells and whistles for “professional” users?
We started out thinking that we would. For a long time we maintained a separate feature tracking project for only “Pro” features. It contained every “wouldn’t it be cool if…” big idea that customers and employees had suggested over the years.
But something was holding us back. I think it was more a gut feeling than anything else, largely coming from Peldi and Mike. On a wiki page called “Future of Mockups User Experience” Mike summarized Peldi’s concerns as follows:
Peldi had a simple vision for Standard [the non-Pro version] that he was excited about. He isn’t excited about a tool that essentially comes close in appearance and function to graphic design tools like Photoshop or prototyping tools like Axure.
Clearly a more powerful tool could be both useful and profitable, but was it something we were excited about building? Fortunately, our decision to remain small and independent allowed us to ask this question rather than just thinking about what would bring in the most money.
Then there was this action item further down the page:
Go back from the start and ask “why did we think of doing a Pro version in the first place? What are the things that just don’t belong in Standard? What problem are we trying to solve with Pro?”
This question of “what problem are we trying to solve?” has frequently shown us the way in times of indecision. And this time it reminded us that Peldi’s original vision hadn’t really changed - to help rid the world of bad software by allowing anyone to quickly and easily visualize their product ideas.
This question of “what problem are we trying to solve?” has frequently shown us the way in times of indecision.
So we decided to channel our efforts into building an update to Balsamiq Mockups that retained the current core functionality and ease but alleviated pain points and cruft that had accumulated as the product had grown.
The Pro label disappeared and the project was dubbed “Mockups 2.5” (the current version was 2.2) since it felt like a big, but not HUGE (e.g., full of new power-user features) update.
Mike created some quick comps that didn’t look radically different from the existing version at the time, Mockups 2.2.
Our focus narrowed to a few specific targets addressing our customer’s biggest frustrations:
Support for bundled project files instead of separate files for each mockup
Improve the usability of Symbols
Redesign the UI layout for a better editing experience (including figuring out what to do with the floating “property inspector” window/widget/thingy that bugged everyone so much)
We made a list of additional features that we'd then work on in "follow up releases."
After many rounds of iteration we started building it and had a working build ready in a relatively short time.
Here’s an early demo from a test build.
Mockups 2.5 was nearly ready.
But were we?
2014: "Panels" + "BMPR" = "B3"
Indecision returned as we reviewed our concepts and requirements. What should this release include? We discovered that there were so many things that we were excited about building into the product. Auto-save? Yes! Project notes? Yes! Preferences dialog? Still no. JSON instead of XML? Yes! Default font settings? Yes! Trash? You get the picture...
It was starting to sound like a pretty big project. Too big for a “minor” (a.k.a. “dot”) update…?
We left that question alone and went back to something more certain. We knew that we wanted the UI layout to have the mockups on the left, the canvas in the center, and the UI Library and Properties on the right. So we just started calling what we were working on Panels because of the UI “panels” on the left and right.
Our high-fidelity "vision" comps gave way to detailed high- and low-level wireframes describing interactions, flows, and layout as we fleshed out more details.
Peldi created a video walkthrough of some of his mockups for the Panels UI.
Notice how effective a simple click-through wireframe deck can be when accompanied by someone walking you through it? This is an example of the design workflow we promote. We generally don't see the need to create high-fidelity, fully interactive prototypes to convey our ideas and this project was no exception.
We generally don't see the need to create high-fidelity, fully interactive prototypes to convey our ideas and this project was no exception.
Peldi, Andrea and Michele were also deep into cleaning up the code at this point, looking at everything we had written in the last 7 years. They consolidated, removed and beautified code until it was actually readable and much more efficient. The clean slate gave us the energy to think more ambitiously about both the back end and front end.
This included a rewrite of our file format to accommodate the exciting new things we wanted to add. Marco and Paolo were borrowed from other projects to help. This spawned architecture diagrams, flow charts, and developer mini-retreats. Meanwhile, the UX team was discussing the toolbars, menus, icons, etc...
Finally, near the end of 2014 we started playing with test builds and trying it out internally. We called it "B3" (for Balsamiq 3). We'd talked about dropping "Mockups" from the product name for a while, since nearly all of our customers just called it "Balsamiq." Plus, what it creates are more accurately called wireframes than mockups. But it turned out to be a pain to change the name for a variety of reasons, so we called it Balsamiq Mockups 3. Although now we were more relaxed about just calling it Balsamiq in conversation. ;-)
Late 2014: Ready for Feedback
We all felt that we had built something that was both more powerful and more elegant than the current version of Mockups. But we had no clue if our customers would feel the same way. It wasn't only a question of would they like it, but would they like it enough to switch, which would include learning some new things and, not insignificantly, converting their old files by importing them to the new format.
As we had done in the past we reached out to some of our long-time champions and friends for a closed beta test. We also conducted a formal usability test with help from Mike Heraghty at User Journeys. This uncovered a lot of technical and usability bugs and gave us some great qualitative feedback, including what to expect from people’s first impressions.
While it was hard to take some of the tough feedback, the overall feeling of connecting and communicating directly with customers was energizing. For the old-timers at Balsamiq it took us back to the early days in the GetSatisfaction forums around version 1.
And the public beta lead to some great improvements in a short amount of time.
Releasing without beta testing first would have been a disaster.
We are so grateful to all of our beta testers for their time and patience. Releasing without beta testing first would have been a disaster and we feel so fortunate to have customers who wanted to help us make our product better.
March 10th, 2015: Release day! There were some hiccups, as expected, but it generally went very smoothly. And we had all-hands on deck to respond to issues that showed up upon releasing to a broader group of users. Two weeks later we released an update addressing most of them, followed by three more updates over the next few weeks.
Less than two months after the official release, we don’t know whether Balsamiq Mockups 3 will be a success for us. We know that we enjoy using it ourselves and that many of our customers do too. But we are hopeful because we followed a process that has worked for us in the past: a mix of passion, focus and openness that feels intuitively right to us.
If I had to distill from this entire process a few lessons we’ve learned from building this and other products it would be these:
Build something you’re excited about
Define the problem you’re trying to solve early on
Involve your customers in a meaningful way at some point in the process
We’ve come a long way since 2.0. Thanks SO MUCH to all of our loyal (and new!) customers. We want Balsamiq Mockups to be a product that you love to use, so please let us know what we can do to make it even better!
One of the most popular things about our little tool is how quickly you can create meaningful wireframes with it.
But there are ways to go even faster with Mockups. Symbols, for example. Symbols let you create reusable common elements across different mockups. Useful, right?
Another way to speed up the process of creating your wireframes is to browse mockups, symbols and UI controls from our community on Mockups To Go. They are free and ready for you! You can contribute, too. :) Find more information here.
If you are looking for some UI Controls that aren't included in the standard set of Mockups controls, here are some symbols that could save you time.
Over time, I have learned to consider the first wireframes of any new idea to be "version 3", meaning that, because of how our brain works, we usually tend to put way too many details in them.
So, once the wireframes are done, I scale them back once (version 2), and then do it again, to get to what should be released in version 1.
I wrote about this little trick as part of a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" session I did last year, and forgot all about it...until I received a CRAZY email a few days ago.
Here it is in all its glory:
From: Chase Reeves <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:42 PM
Subject: You inspired this quick post (+ a few gifs)
There was a bit in your Reddit AMA where I was, all, like this:
Cuz, before that bit my ideas were, like, this:
I couldn't nail the MVP, just wasn't capable:
Then you were, all, like this:
And now i'm, all, this and this:
So I wrote up this post.
Been sitting on this one since all the way back to your reddit AMA.
Big fan, fellow speaker and bootstrapper.
Cheers, Peldi! You're a magic man.
Chase, you made my day. :)
The post Chase wrote is really interesting, it elaborates on the Version 3 idea quite nicely. Check it out, and check out his startup Fizzle, too!
People often wonder how much visual detail to put into their wireframes. There's an attractive elegance to a simple black and white sketch, but it can sometimes lead to gaps in the shared understanding of what the final product will really look like.
Wireframes shine during the early phases of product development when ideation and rapid iteration are most valued. But what makes them ideal for this phase also hinders them in the next phase, when pixel precision and visual details are called upon for implementation. Despite this, many people (I'm guilty of this as well) try to incorporate these fine-grained and aesthetic details into the wireframe itself by tuning fonts and adding colors and other visual effects.
This can often lead to confusion when these high-fidelity wireframes are used as implementation specifications and sent "over the wall" to the development team. Most wireframing tools are not optimized for creating artifacts that look and feel like a finished product. Yet creating polished renditions of every screen using a tool like Photoshop is time consuming and may not translate well to the final product anyway.
There is another way. The only requirement is good communication within the team.
Separation of Concerns
An alternative to pushing wireframes beyond their limits is to keep them low fidelity and let another tool do the work of specifying the look and feel. Tools for this purpose are already well established, in fact, especially for web applications and sites. Sketchy, (mostly) black and white wireframes pair very nicely with pattern libraries (and, to a lesser extent, style guides). Before diving in, let's define what they are.
Sketchy, black and white wireframes pair nicely with pattern libraries.
Like their younger sibling, style guides, pattern libraries contain definitions for a particular look and feel. They go one step farther though, in that they often define behavior and are backed by working code. Large companies have been using pattern libraries for a long time but until recently they were too labor intensive for smaller companies, often requiring dedicated designers and developers working outside of the primary product teams.
This changed when the Twitter Bootstrap (now just called Bootstrap) framework was released a few years ago. It was (and is) a free starter kit for web development that provides compliant, robust HTML templates and generally good-looking CSS styles (which can be customized to suit your brand). It comes with its own grid and typography definitions as well as styles for buttons and forms. In short, it takes a lot of the hard work out of starting a web project and making sure that it will work across browsers. A framework like Bootstrap can be used as a good foundation for a pattern library.
Pattern Libraries + Mockups in Practice
The main advantage of pairing a pattern library with Balsamiq Mockups is that it can free you from worrying about look, feel, and behavior when designing yet provide pixel-perfect renditions of the final product components.
If you already know what a button (or tab, menu, etc.) is going to look like and what its state transitions will be when you click it, you don't have to style it in your wireframe. Black and white and Balsamiq Sans is just fine. Having a pattern library can allow you to jump straight from wireframes to code without leaving the final vision undefined.
Having a pattern library can allow you to jump straight from wireframes to code without leaving the final vision undefined.
Here's how you can introduce them to Balsamiq Mockups. You'll find that they get along quite well together!
If you have the resources you can create your own pattern library or you can start with a customized download of Bootstrap or Foundation (more examples at the end of this post). The next step is to create a mapping between it and the controls in Balsamiq Mockups. This essentially amounts to developing a shared agreement of "(this) means (this)." You can do this by creating a document showing these mappings or by having a meeting with the design and development teams around a screen to work it out.
Here's an example of how you might map some Balsamiq Mockups controls to Bootstrap components (you could also start with our Bootstrap Mockups To Go library).
(Note: It's ok to use some color, but it should only be used as much as necessary to indicate states and selections, for example.)
Having this kind of mapping means that developers no longer have to wonder whether the colors in the wireframe are supposed to be used in their code. They can just translate in their head that a blue button in the wireframe actually means a green button in the UI (if that's the color you use) and that breadcrumbs separated by the '>' character should actually be separated by the '/' character in the app, for example.
Having this kind of mapping means that developers no longer have to wonder whether the colors in the wireframe are supposed to be used in their code.
You can also extend your pattern library by creating your own Balsamiq Mockups controls as Symbols to map to other components in your library.
This mapping can evolve and grow over time as needs and design language change in your organization.
Here's a simple example showing what a completed wireframe could end up looking like when built using a pattern library (note that blue in the wireframe doesn't have to mean blue in the finished product).
Wireframe to working code with no additional design artifacts in between!
Having a pattern library also means that you're reusing the same code across all parts of your application so that different developers produce the same UIs, which leads to better standards and consistency. And designers can rely more on the stock controls rather than spending hours trying to replicate the look of their own, so both the design and development cycles are shortened.
Summary / YMMV
This approach won't work for all projects or organizations.
It is better suited to in-house teams, for example. Clients outside your organization are more likely to want to see a high-fidelity mockup or comp. Also, many of the existing pattern libraries are for web-based products. Desktop and mobile application pattern library templates and examples are less abundant. Additionally, you should have good communication between design and development teams for this approach to work. Waterfall and remote teams might struggle with this.
That said, it does offer many advantages in certain setups, such as:
Saves time when wireframing
No mismatch between mockup and reality
Good for Lean/Agile methodologies where deliverables don't need to be so formal
Good for small teams and startups without many resources (especially when using frameworks)
Different skillsets can be applied to different design areas (e.g., visual designers and developers for the pattern library, interaction designers for the wireframes)
Design processes (wireframes vs. pattern library creation) can be done independently resulting in fewer bottlenecks
More UI consistency across the product
Pattern Library Examples and Variants
Some resources to help you develop your own pattern library:
We created a tutorial to give you some ideas for how to create project templates that contain elements you commonly use in your projects.
Along with this tutorial, we created two example templates.
The UX Template is designed for people working on UX Design projects who typically need to present a polished deck to clients. Here's a preview of what you'll find in this template.
The Bootstrap Template is designed for people who know they're going to be using Bootstrap, and want to use the text elements, and components common to the Bootstrap framework. Here's a preview of what you'll find in this template:
You'll find more information, including videos for how to get started in the tutorial.
It happens to all of us. You get stuck. You're stalled on a design and don't know what to do next. Or you find yourself using the same tired design pattern over and over again, though you know there's gotta be a better way. And then there's the sneakiest form of stuck: reacting to a feature request by whipping up and sending off the first design that comes to mind without diving deeper into the problem.
These scenarios are frustrating because you know that not only is there a better design out there, there's a better designer inside. You just have to find a way to jar it loose by waking him/her up.
There's no sure-fire way to do this. Every case is different. And sometimes it just clears up on its own. In this post I list a few techniques we've used to kick-start that process using Balsamiq Mockups. Hopefully you'll find them helpful.
Technique #1: Embrace Constraints
There are an infinite number of design solutions for every idea. Yikes! If you think about that it can stop you right in your tracks. But we all know that there's nothing like a deadline or an arbitrary restriction to get things going. Here are some suggestions along those lines:
Limit yourself to 5 minutes (or less!) per mockup. After 5 minutes, create a new one and try to come up with a totally different idea. Repeat. See how many ideas you can create like this.
Try to create 5 mockups in 10 minutes around the same design problem or idea. (Tip: Learn keyboard shortcuts to help you work faster.)
Limit yourself to 10 UI controls. See if you can describe your idea in even fewer; it often doesn't take many to capture it.
A variation on the above: limit yourself to a basic subset of UI controls. Pick the most generic ones (rectangle, button, shape, etc.) and work using only those to focus on the big picture first.
Peldi has said that the first design is often version 3 of the product. Create the wireframe you have in mind then try to remove as many pieces as possible. This will challenge you to think about what's most important and what's not really needed.
Put all the UI controls on the canvas then try to build your mockup. It may help you think of other methods of doing things in the UI (as well as scramble your brain a bit). Move aside the unused ones, but don't delete them right away because you may come up with a use for them later on in the design.
Swap projects with a designer on another team. Have them do one of your designs while you do one of theirs.
Assign multiple people to work on the same design. Do a "show and tell" with time for discussion about each design. Then allow each person to revise their design based on the ideas from others.
Pair design. Have two people sit together and assign one person to describe the design and the other one to use the mouse and keyboard in Mockups. Even if you have a very specific UI/design in mind it may come out different if someone else is building it, and the process of describing it may help you catch some flaws with it.
As we are a software company, our process for adding documentation is not unlike our process for adding features and fixing bugs. Here's how we do it.
Recording a need
Documentation updates can be prompted by several actions. Here are the primary triggers:
A customer contacts us (via phone, email or our forums) and mentions a typo or mistake in our documentation or has a problem that should be explained better on our support site
We add or change something in our product and therefore need to update our documentation
A support employee mentions that lots of people keep asking the same question and asks to create a dedicated FAQ or article about it
As much as possible we try to track things our customers want to know more about and things they're frustrated by. Our process hinges on frequent communication between our customer-facing staff and our documentation and product people. We also want to make it easy to then record those frustrations as tasks and assign them to the right people. I am responsible for our non-sales related documentation.
The three main tools we use in our documentation workflow are:
Desk - for email support and for managing our documentation knowledge base
If an issue related to documentation is raised in Desk (our direct customer support channel), it can be assigned to me. We also have a dedicated HipChat room called Docs, where we discuss ideas for new support articles and give feedback on existing ones.
Some conversation in our HipChat Docs room, including status updates from Pivotal
To stay in the loop I also monitor the Support HipChat room so I that can see what people are having trouble with.
Some conversation in our HipChat Support room
We use Pivotal Tracker for our product feature requests and bug fixes, so it made sense to use it to track documentation tasks as well. For a long time our documentation issues were filed in a general "Website" project, which was a catch-all for anything affecting our website (documentation, page redesigns, CSS alignment issues, etc.). But we recently created a separate project called "Docs" just for documentation and tutorials and moved our documentation stories into it.
We also made it easier to add issues to Pivotal by connecting Pivotal to HipChat via Zapier. Now, when a documentation story is created or updated in Pivotal, it is shown in HipChat (you can see this in the first HipChat screenshot above). Conversely, we can create Pivotal documentation issues directly from HipChat by typing: "Pivotal(issue name)". Employees can also create Pivotal stories directly in our Pivotal Docs project.
Once the documentation tasks are in Pivotal, I can organize them and begin work on them. Organization within Pivotal can be a bit of a challenge though, so I came up with a few additional processes for getting a handle on our documentation stories.
After we separated our documentation stories from our other website stories I quickly reviewed each of them. I started by labeling those I didn't understand as "to review." Those that appeared to be no longer relevant I labeled "to remove." The people who created those stories pitched in and added their comments or deleted them and we reduced the size of the backlog a bit.
Next, I tried to think about how to prioritize and group the remaining stories because I didn't have a good way to get a sense of urgency and difficulty. One of the first things I did (perhaps because diving right in was too intimidating) was develop a labeling system.
After some iteration, I came up with three categories of labels:
The Action label group, describing what kind of task was needed
"New" means this is a new article that should be created
"Update" means that this is an existing article that needs updating (e.g., out-of-date screenshot, missing feature/function)
"Clarify" means that something in this article is not clear and should be reworded or modified for clarity
The Actor label group, describing the type of documentation affected
"FAQ" is for any FAQ (product, licensing, installation)
"Documentation" is for product user guides (anything in the Mockups for Desktop or myBalsamiq "Documentation" category or any of the plugin User or Admin guides)
"Tutorial" is for tutorials
The Category label group, describing the affected product or category within the Actor group (myB, Desktop, GDrive, Licensing, etc.) - this is optional
When adding the tags I try to place the tags in this order: "Action (Category) Actor" so that they make sense when written out. E.g., "New Installation FAQ", "Update myB Documentation", "Update Tutorial".
This has worked pretty well, as the labels seem to fit most requests and I'm able to add them easily when a new Pivotal issue is created. It also helps me tackle these issues in bulk more easily. So, for example, one month I made a point of addressing all "Update" stories in order to try to get our documentation up to date with the latest release (I didn't make it all the way through, but I made a big dent!).
A few stories in the Pivotal Docs project
To help with planning, I devised a system for estimating the work required for our documentation and tutorials stories. Here's the current version:
0 points - No change needed (e.g., duplicate or no longer applicable)
1 point - Typo or minor wording change
2 points - Updating or adding a screen shot, adding a new section to a document or a major re-write of one or more sections of a document
3 points - Creation of a new article or video
There is a big jump between 2 and 3 points (writing a long article or creating a video can take a couple of days), so it's not exactly a linear scale, but it's simple and clear enough to do be useful.
A new writing tool
One of the frustrating things for me when I started writing new documentation was just how long it took. For a simple document it often took a full day. One of the reasons is that our documentation is written in HTML (which is ok, although it adds some time) in a web-based tool (which makes iterations and drafts a bit challenging) and often requires screenshots (which can be a pain to create and upload).
What I really craved was one tool for everything, preferably that could work offline. After a lot of research, I settled on ScreenSteps Desktop, a tool for writing help guides that has built-in image capture. This was the killer feature for me. It can also automatically resize images to a set width to fit our web template. This saves me from having to edit them after I've captured them. And it outputs HTML with the ability to customize the output template with variables so that it generates the exact HTML that I needed to paste into Desk. My edits to the default template included removing the header and footer, mapping to the correct images directory, and adding specific CSS class names that we use on our site.
Our ScreenSteps HTML template, stripped down to meet our needs (click to see more of it)
I haven't used it for our main documentation yet, but it worked great for our "How-To" guides, which are heavy on images.
The process of publishing images also got easier when we moved to using GitHub to manage uploading our images, meaning that I could drag and drop them from my computer rather than using FTP.
A Style Guide for docs
Finally, we wrote a style guide for our documentation (although I haven't gone through the process of updating our old docs with it). It covers topics like rules for HTML and how text should be capitalized and formatted.
A work in progress...
One of the big things I was hired to do was improve our documentation and I'm pleased with the new content and processes we've added in the the last year. The process is a lot smoother than when I started and I'm hopeful that our content will take another big leap forward in 2014.
Still, I know that as a UX designer turned Doc writer I have a lot of room to grow, so I'm focusing on improving my abilities. Although I've been struck by the many similarities between UX design work and writing documentation. For instance, the process of creating something based on a specific need, giving an orderly structure to it and then refining and polishing it seems to activate the same neurons as designing a UI for me.
It also has many of the same challenges as my UX roles. Much like coming into a company as a new designer, I inherited a "product" (our support site), which had existing content and an underlying technology platform, both of which were limiting in some way. There is a significant cost to shifts in either that can outweigh their advantages. (We have researched other documentation platforms but haven't found one that meets our needs much better than what we have, so I'd love to hear what works for others.)
Fortunately, I've had help throughout the year. I adopted the good practices that had been established when I arrived. And I started paying a lot more attention to other support websites and made an effort to understand how they were designed. I also attended the Write The Docs conference last year, where I connected with other doc writers and learned about the resources and tools that they use.
I'm still learning though, so I welcome your advice or feedback in the comments!
At Balsamiq we've always prided ourselves on our customer service. We have real live humans who stand by the phone and love hearing it ring. And we're blazing fast with email support by providing coverage from our U.S. team during our working hours and passing it off to our European team during theirs.
We also rely heavily on our web support channel, i.e., our support website (support.balsamiq.com). This site serves as our repository for product documentation and FAQs, helping people learn the product and get help if they run into trouble. Our support site is very important not only for customers wanting to get answers, but for our support staff, who can direct people to specific articles that can answer their questions.
In 2013, we identified several touch points in our customer journey that we wanted to improve. Support was a primary focus, being an aspect of the company's service that customers can repeatedly return to. A little back story describing the evolution of our support site may help understand what we hoped to improve.
When Balsamiq started, our documentation was modestly maintained on our servers (a single page per product) and we responded to support primarily using Gmail and GetSatisfaction. As the company and customer count grew, we grew our support team. In 2012 we started using Desk.com to manage our support system, from email management to publishing our documentation.
We shipped a very basic site with a searchable set of articles using Desk's base templates. While we continued to write support articles and improve how we responded using the email management capabilities of Desk, the support site was largely unchanged. The questions and feedback we got over that first year helped us become aware of its limitations, and we started to describe the problems internally.
The predominant issue had to do with difficulty locating content. From our perspective we also identified problems connecting related content, keeping media up to date, and knowing if users were getting the answers they were looking for.
This was a re-alignment and not a redesign. We set out to improve the site, focusing on aligning the organization of content and the layout of entry pages to address the findability problems, and gardening the current content to reflect user needs.
A new look + better organization
Here's a list of the most noticeable changes to our support site, although there were many other, smaller changes we made to both our processes and our site.
Updates to our support home page
We wrote up requirements and started wireframing a rough idea that we could use to discuss the problem and explore solutions. We iterated over it a few times until we had a basic understanding and agreement on the direction we wanted to take, and immediately started front end development. We like to make refinements in further iterations in code.
This screenshot shows our initial wireframe for the support home page.
Rather than just showing the first 10 articles in each category we wanted to encourage visitors to either search for what they are looking for or choose a category to drill down into for a more approachable index page for that category. This cut down greatly the amount of text on the page and provided better entry points to a refined search. Also, by looking through our logs, we could pick out some of the most popular search terms and place them next to the search box, helping people who didn't necessarily know how to describe what they were looking for. Finally, increased use of icons and images would differentiate the categories and other link targets better.
Here you can see a comparison of the original support site's main page with the redesigned version.
Better sidebar navigation
Our sidebar (the grey navigation bar to the right on our individual articles) now links to headings within the page so that you can get an overview of the article you're reading without having to scroll all the way through to see if it contains the content you're looking for. We've also tried to save some time and effort by providing links to some related articles below that in case the page you're on doesn't answer your question or you want more information.
This screenshot shows some of the navigation changes to our sub-pages, as well as updates to our tutorials (discussed below).
More focus on tutorials
We got feedback last year saying that many of our articles were too wordy and too focused on describing features rather than on how to actually do stuff with our products. So, we made a concerted effort to step things up in the tutorials department. Here are some of the changes we've made.
A new index page for tutorials
We started by creating a new home page for our tutorials. It's grouped into categories for beginners, intermediate users, and people who want to do more with our products once they've learned how to use them.
We also got feedback from people who said that they just wanted to see the videos, so we've labeled the tutorials that contain videos as well as consolidating all of them into one playlist that's viewable at the bottom of the new index page.
We also experimented with some different kinds of tutorials. Some people said that many of our articles were too general or that they didn't have many pictures or enough guidance. So, we took some of our most frequently asked "how do I...?" questions and created a few detailed, step-by-step guides showing these processes each step of the way. Our guides on how to create a symbol and how to download from Mockups To Go, for example.
More "Tips and tricks" videos
We describe Balsamiq Mockups as "Excruciatingly simple. Filled with hidden powers." The goal of the videos we've added recently has been to reveal some of those hidden powers by showing how you can do things with Mockups that you may not have thought were possible and/or easily accomplished. We relied on our own Mockups experience as well as examples from our customers to create a few short videos, such as "How to Use Show / Hide Markup for Layering" and "How to Create Multiple Header Rows in a Data Grid" that might make you say, "I didn't know you could do that with Balsamiq Mockups!" We hope to create more in the coming year.
Here's an example of one of them:
Looking ahead / our hopes for 2014
Here's a quick list of some things we'd like to add in the next year:
Better, clearer docs, more tailored to specific needs
Better metrics for tracking the usefulness of our articles
A more structured course for learning Mockups
Tagging or labeling for better cross-referencing of articles
Applying the editorial style guide that we finally got around to creating to all of our old articles
How are we doing? What would you like to see more or less of? Have any tips for us? If so, leave a comment below or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. We're eager to get better!
Supporting customers is such a huge part of what we do as company. Everyone contributes to customer support in one way or another, and our awesome team keep working to improve that experience.
Recognizing that we don't just care about support, but live it, GetSatisfaction interviewed Ben for their Customer Experience Series of videos. Our forum powered by GetSatisfaction has been one of the primary resources we've relied on for keeping close to our community. We're huge fans.
It's a wonderful feeling knowing that our connection to the community is in such good hands.
Hi, all. Ben here again with more sketchnotes! (Here is a link to the first set of sketchnotes I posted.) Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in the Mobile UX Summit, put on by Environments for Humans and Rosenfeld Media. It featured a fantastic lineup of speakers, all focused on the nuances of designing for mobile experiences.
One of the biggest takeaways for me was from Josh Clark's talk. He pointed out that touch devices have fundamentally changed who we are and what we do as interface designers. Whether we are aware of it or not, we are also now industrial designers. Ergonomics is a huge part of what we do, and must be taken into consideration when we craft our designs.
Another main point that resonated with me was from Jason Teague. He made it clear that we have to elevate the importance of typography. In many mobile designs, the typography and layout are some of the only design considerations you can impose on an interface to make sure that it convey the proper emotions to your users. "Mobile first" has become a cultural buzz-phrase, but we should perhaps start with typography first before tackling more of the visual design.
Finally, from Theresa Neil's case study, it was clear immediate user testing is an absolute must. This is something that we really care about here at Balsamiq, and want to make as easy as possible. We have recently added some features to make this easier, and have even more planned. I loved hearing about designers getting users to interact with their wireframes before even moving on to visual design. Taking an approach like that will save you incredible amounts of time and money down the road.
There was so much more in this conference that I loved, and hopefully my full set of sketchnotes will help you to benefit from it as well.
(Click to enlarge; ← and → to move through the images)
The UX Blog is where we talk about the user experience of our products, showing you what we're thinking and how we're evolving. We talk with you about your UX needs, and share tips and tricks to help you use Mockups better.