Figma had the most powerful features for custom built development. UXPin is still a good out of the box choice for teams that don't want to build or maintain their own library, but Figma is what we needed to build and present a new custom UI for our product.
InVision and Figma are quite similar in terms of feature set and capabilities. While InVision is more popular for prototyping, the user experience on Figma is just a lot simpler and smooth. Sketch on the other hand, while being great didn't offer as many collaboration options …
The first thing I’ll say is the learning curve is way lighter on UXPin. Also UXPin updates their app, and performance routinely and adds new features based on community needs.
It’s the first web-based tool that outputs code rendered in the browser from a design created in a …
Figma is very well suited for software design. I've used it for several years for all kinds of apps, from small companies to multinational corporations. The infinite whiteboard is fantastic and provides the free workspace I need, just like having a big design studio in real life. The ability to collaborate in real-time with other team members is great and enhances communication tremendously. Conversely, Figma is not great at doing jobs in print or anything that you would normally do in Photoshop or Illustrator. And that's fine. Those apps are made for a different purpose than Figma.
UXPin is an excellent resource for creating website and app flows and to better help our clients understand how their websites and apps will function. It also gives them a visual reference and some real-life application. It can be difficult for clients to truly understand how a website or an app flows from one page or screen to another via a phone call or web conference. UXPin helps us to illustrate these flows in a hands-on, visual format. UXPin also helps our clients understand the purpose of a sitemap. We used to send our clients a sitemap in an outline format. While many understood that the top-level items on the outline were the main navigation of their website and other items were child pages, several did not. We have found that using UXPin to show the main level navigation, how in-page navigation and child pages (drop-down menus from the main navigation) work has been an integral step in getting approval on sitemaps.
Smart elements are super nice because they allow me to create complicated features that will appear on every page. When the client wants to change something it is very easy to do so in one place.
Working on grid is important to me. Having the ability to change and manipulate that grid in UXPin is just what I need.
There are tons of add on features like Font Awesome icons and prebuilt stuff that not only looks great, but also just lets me get ideas across fast without committing to what the final design is going to look like.
I love the ability to edit things if I want. I can control several details, but it's not too overwhelming. They include various font options from Google fonts as well. You can design as much or as little as you want. The interface doesn't get in the way. It's there if you want it but has a simplicity that is nice.
Having a link on a live webpage is a necessity. As soon as you make changes, they are live. No more worrying about which is the latest version.
I'm a photoshop user so it has a few keyboard commands that are familiar like hold 'alt', click and drag to duplicate is nice!
Tappable overlaid layers - bugs on fixed components, such as an app navigation footer in a prototype
Swapping a component but retaining inputted copy or imagery.
Performance on prototypes to work better in UserZoom - having to delete hidden layers manually, optimize images, and streamline the file, in general, is time-consuming
Folder structures - larger teams need multiple layers of folder structure to help find things.
Branch performance - we need better, more user-friendly solutions to get designs to merge better.
Branch performance - branching with the option to choose which pages you want in the branch without deleting each page you don't need.
Default sharing options need improvement.
Responsive ratios' in prototyping without having to recreate pages.
Better collaboration with Jira to bring in links in the design mode not just dev mode.
No search and replace for fonts (missing or just to replace).
Tool is built for design/dev teams but does not integrate content teams in well.
If you are not careful you can get lost in designing interactions when you should be just creating building blocks - don’t over animate!!!
There is currently no “scrub” or click-drag interaction which limits touch capability testing/concepts.
Editing adaptive versions of designs is very time consuming, edits to not ripple through from master viewport size. All updates are manual, even when creating an adaptive version.
When a library item is updated, it can revert changes you have made unknowingly.
Video integration is limited to online video host aggregators such as IMGR, YouTube, and Vimeo.
Not a ton of info for a designer on how to use the expressions effectively.
Prototypes with a lot of interactions can get slow, especially on computers with a lot of security software. It’s best to work with UXPin to figure out what is blocking APIs, and JS.
Figma is a pretty cool tool in many areas. My team almost uses it on daily basis, such as, brainstorming on product/design topics, discussing prototypes created by designers. We even use it for retrospectives, which is super convenient and naturally keeps records of what the team discusses every month. Furthermore, I do see the potential of the product - currently we mainly use it for design topics, but it seems it is also a good fit for tech diagrams, which we probably will explore further in the future.
We'll definitely continue to use UXPin. Right now it provides us with everything we need in order to deliver quality projects to our clients. If at any point in time, UXPin doesn't provide us with what we need, we'll start vetting other software out there that may be similar. My guess is that UXPin will continue to make updates and improvements so we'll likely stick with it for quite some time.
It's so simple to use! I have no background in UI design but basic designing and I was able to learn this software Figma within 3-5 days. There are tons of tutorials available on Youtube from so many popular YouTubers in the space, you can just go through them and start designing.
I haven't used their support lately but in the past, they had a chat that I used often. They often responded in a few hours and were able to give a satisfactory solution. I would imagine it's less personal now but the community has expanded drastically so there are more resources out there to self serve with a bit of Google magic.
As far as I know, my teams have only had to use the UXPin support once. The experience went really well. We just needed a bit of assistance with using the Documentation feature. UXPin's support was quick and helped my team in a matter of minutes. We will definitely reach out to their support without hesitation in the future.
In-person training has its own benefits - 1. It helps in resolving queries then and there during the training. 2. I find classroom or in-person training more interactive. 3. Classroom or in-person training could be more practical in nature where participants can have an hands on experience with tools and clarify their doubts with the trainer.
Online training has its own merits and demerits - 1. Sometimes we may face issues with connectivity or the training content 2. The way training is being delivered becomes very important because not everyone is comfortable taking online training and learning by themselves. 3. With the advancement of technology online training has become popular but there is a segment of people who still prefer class-room training over online one.
Figma blows these out the park. Adobe's system is very different, and I think this shows in their attempted acquisition of Figma. I've not used Sketch or Invision, but their lack of market presence says a lot—designers like using the best tools. Axure is definitely more comprehensive in prototype testing but very hard to adapt to use—the hotkeys aren't even the same!
Adobe XD is so much more than UXPin, with Adobe Cloud you can easily share designs as well. We used Adobe XD before changing to UXPin. At first UXPin seems so advanced and helpful, but don't get fooled. You're heavily limited in the long run, and after all the training and implementation of UXPin (both app-wise for IT but also training designers etc) it is not worth your time.
Seamless integration of designs into Jira have helped double the level of accuracy during development. Interactive access to preview prototypes, flows and mockups has made a huge difference for us.
When components are updated in ways that changes the copy or architecture, it breaks all of its instances creating a massive source of anxiety for everyone on the team. The fact that we are uncertain whether our updates will retain text overrides forces us to triple check each time, decreasing our operational efficiency.
When high-fidelity prototypes are built to showcase new concepts, their ability to appear almost identical to our production site makes it much easier for stakeholders to get involved in decision making therefore allowing us to make more well rounded decisions.
Saving money by using one tool for lo-fi wireframing, high fidelity wireframing, prototyping, and user testing, rather than four separate tools.
The ability to create and use team libraries enables us to create visually consistent designs with less effort than creating every single design from scratch, which allows us to save considerable time (and therefore money!)
In-platform collaboration saves our team a lot of time and energy. With everything in one place (wireframes, prototypes, user feedback, collaboration comments), we can all be on the same page about the design workflow and pinpoint discussion points that are based on up-to-date designs.
