Whoops, here's an unfortunate UX hiccup in the implementation:
Here is how to edit someone else's mockup for your own post:
1) edit the original question/answer containing the mockup you want to improve
2) copy the part between
<!-- Begin mockup
and
End mockup -->
3) hit cancel
4) .. more steps
This seems poorly planned to me. Instead, like the edit link, there should simply be an iterate link.
But otherwise, I think this is a very positive and helpful integration. Perhaps similar positive integration might be sites like JS fiddle that allow you to run code in the browser would be great integration for the programming stack overflows.
I note that this is the same workflow as for making a modified copy of some content on a wiki. (And when a page is read-only on MediaWiki, "edit" becomes labeled "view source", but it's the same thing.) Is there a UI solution for this problem in general?
I wonder how they can do this without compromising sales of their main product -- it seems like many people can now just use the free version linked from ux.se instead of getting a proper myBalsamiq account.
Just an FYI: This is not the mental model of people who actually pay money for software.
I've been at the table where Balsamiq has been purchased before. Here's a conversation I've had three times.
Me: So here's my concept for a redesign of the $FOO page. You'll notice that I moved the conversion buttons to ...
Engineer: Oh that's cool. What did you do that in?
Me: Balsamiq Mockups. It is a design tool written by a buddy of mine which...
Engineer: How much? (and/or Why not just use Photoshop? and/or You didn't pay for that, did you? You can do it in Excel.)
Decisionmaker: Doesn't matter. Get a copy for everyone, put it on the company card. You were saying, Patrick?
[Addendum regarding strategic use of freebies: Peldi emailed me a license key when asking for a review way back in like 2007. I don't think I ever actually blogged a formal review, but that email has been a big win for both of us over the years. He's got a Marketing For Startups blog post where he discusses that technique in detail. It's still one of the best actionable posts I've ever read.
I appreciate Patrick's intent and mission to get engineers to value their wares more but I don't think his anecdote makes the most compelling argument.
For a counter-anecdote, I will say that in +10 years of a software career I have never, not even once, seen a "decision maker" say anything near "Doesn't matter. Get a copy for everyone, put it on the company card." ¥
¥ Most likely because that would be a stupid and reckless thing to say.
The presumption is that a piece of wireframe-sketching software that a consultant has brought on their laptop is not going to cost enough to be worth talking about.
I have seen it several times. And it's not stupid/reckless - it's incredibly helpful to have someone who sees the value in a tool willing to purchase it for their employees.
It happened to me recently. A large team found that Dropbox made things easier. The program manager told everyone to buy themselves the 50MB subscription and expense it.
It's also really obvious marketing -- Balsamiq now has exposure on a site that is its target market. Every visitor to the UX StackExchange is a potential customer, so it makes perfect business sense to integrate.
As soon as someone thinks, "I wonder where I can make mockups like those really cool-looking ones on StackExchange?" Balsamiq wins.
We're not too worried about it, I have found that the old "the more you give the more you get" adage really has some truth to it. I also fundamentally believe in the goodness of people. Those who want to take advantage of you always will, but the vast majority of people do not live to take advantage of other's hard work, or at least I like to believe so.
That said, there's one thing we did to prevent people from using the UX.SE.COM integration as a non-nagging web version: you cannot export from the editor, just Import. You can only save the BMML from the publicly posted image of the mockup on the UX question page. So if you want to save your work, you have to do it in public. Not a huge step, but we think it's enough.
If you can't export and save it should be fine. Also I doubt you can create a clickable PDF with this, which is one neat use of Balsamiq.
ux.stackexchange.com is exactly their target demo. Normally a company like Balsamiq would pay for ads on a site like this, that would entice you to try their free demo. This cuts out that step, they can try a basic version of the software right on page. And it's good for the ux.se community too.
it seems like many people can now just use the free version linked from ux.se
It's a good question but generally the overwhelming majority of customers of such products can easily afford them.
One way to think about it is imagine wanting a crunch bar. You can pay fifty cents in the vending machine steps from your desk. Or you can do down two levels and get it for free from your buddy. If I have fifty cents, I'd almost certainly just get it from the vending machine without even thinking twice(it's too little money).
Now if I was so terribly broke or inconvenienced because I had no quarters(and the machine only took quarters), it'd be a whole different thing and I'd go for the free one.
"it seems like many people can now just use the free version linked from ux.se instead of getting a proper myBalsamiq account."
You can pretty much do that now by using the web demo at balsamiq.com anyway. You'll get a tiny nag screen every 5 minutes, but seeing that once or twice over the course of a quick mockup sketch isn't such a big deal.
First, Balsamiq has been around for awhile. I don't think that was the worst choice ever. In fact, it was probably the best decision to make it 1) work and 2) work and 3) work across browsers and 4) SHIP. OMG YouTube uses Flash, what are they thinking OH NOOOS.
Next, whether it works on an iPhone or Android is not necessarily the most important thing for that audience. It is a mockup/sketch application for user interfaces. Perhaps they will create a HTML5 version but I think the guy did a great job and made a good choice for his business. I first heard about it on, I think, the Startup Success podcast some years ago.
People are mainly using Balsamiq to create things. The iPad isn't typically used for content creation, but for content consumption. For a UI editor, drawing tool, etc. like Balsamiq you'd be more productive with a more precise pixel pusher like a mouse rather than a fat finger. Not to say that you can't do any prototype design, while laying around on your couch with an iPad -- just that beyond a few things when you get into the details it's not that great of a form factor.
Kind of a narrow view isn't it? People do use iPads for "content creation" (ask Harry McCracken) but even without disputing that, consider that Windows 8 Metro mode means no browser plug-ins. And that will definitely be used on devices with keyboards and pixel-precise input methods.
This is one of those beautiful win-win-win situations - everyone in this situation is happy - StackExchange, Balsamiq, and the users. What a great idea, and props to all involved for making it happen.
Very cool indeed, but ironically, I don't think editing the wireframe is very "user friendly". Anything requiring me to click "edit" on someone's post, copying code, canceling, pasting, and THEN having the ability to edit the mockup isn't ideal.
Great idea. Having Balsamiq integrated into ux.stackexchange.com seems to be a win-win for both companies. Stackexchange get more tools for describing Q & A, and Balsamiq gets more people aware of and using their product.
Here is how to edit someone else's mockup for your own post:
This seems poorly planned to me. Instead, like the edit link, there should simply be an iterate link.But otherwise, I think this is a very positive and helpful integration. Perhaps similar positive integration might be sites like JS fiddle that allow you to run code in the browser would be great integration for the programming stack overflows.