Freehand

What differentiates Freehand from other similar products?

The developer transfer processes and speedy hi-fi iteration are the two most difficult difficulties I can handle using InVision. The ability to connect to a design library and build from the same source of truth has been invaluable. InVision is used by my organization to prototype and construct a complicated web-based solution. We were able to properly test our concepts using InVision's powerful prototyping capabilities with little constraints. The intricacy of our program may make testing difficult, yet InVision delivers the functionality we require for successful user testing.

What is your favorite aspect of this product?

What drew me to InVision was its code-based core, as well as its ability to link to a library of components via its Merge function. These are capabilities that no other tool has been able to compete with, and it is fascinating to see what the tool's future holds. I'll add mention that I enjoy the iterations function. The ability to make snapshots of your working file within the same application, as well as the integration of version control, is crucial. You can no longer rely on Time Machine backups or file naming conventions.

What do you dislike most about this product?

The only criticism I have for the program is that key industry standard functionalities are still missing from InVision. The most significant ones for me are auto-layout and the ability to apply grids to items. They have some catching up to do, but I'm convinced they will do so soon.

What recommendations would you give to someone considering this product?

This software is really functional and makes the work easier and more efficient, besides being able to do real tests is a great advantage.

What differentiates Freehand from other similar products?

One issue we are addressing is cost. Previously, designers had to have the usual stack of tools like Sketch and Zeplin or similar techniques, which were rather expensive. It's a tremendous help to have all of our designs in one location for easy reference. InVision is used by my team to create product components and functionalities. We also use it to simulate solutions for our clients and to prototype examples or concepts. All of our design documentation is housed on the InVision website.

What is your favorite aspect of this product?

InVision is without a doubt one of the greatest prototyping tools available, and I've used it extensively. Because of its simplicity of use, robust interaction capabilities, collaboration/feedback loop, and built-in style sheets and design systems, our team was able to integrate all of our designs into one system rather than having to do so in the past. Preview views may be quickly shared, mocked up, and commented on whenever the design is ready for internal or client approval. I like how comments may be read by all users or by individual people. The simulation feature is particularly useful for demonstrating ideas or functions.

What do you dislike most about this product?

The InVision implementation is currently a bit difficult for the tool's core users, who are designers. We needed the assistance of a professional engineer, but after they had it up and running, adding our programmed components to the editor was a breeze. Building components on a specific layer inside the overall image is often challenging or involves a lot of clicks, in my opinion. I'd want to see this simplified. When there are multiple interactions inside a prototype, performance might suffer significantly.

What recommendations would you give to someone considering this product?

Mockups are readily shared with varied access levels (comment only, read documentation, modify) depending on who you send it to because InVision is web-based. All of the relevant information may be simply captured by developers. Designers can use design libraries as well as other industry standards.

What differentiates Freehand from other similar products?

It enables me to prototype websites more effectively, professionally, and it is more powerful and simple to use, allowing the UX work life cycle to assess usability and usefulness without requiring disposable deliverables. reduces the complexity of development transfer, particularly when using the seldom used direct documentation capability. The feedback feature makes it simple to gather input, and the design view's display of that feedback makes it simple to act and reply.

What is your favorite aspect of this product?

The strongest feature of InVision is its powerful and adaptable prototyping tools. Compared to figma or XD, some tinkering is required, but it's much simpler to construct carousels, animations, etc. because they are built-in and don't require manipulation like the others. This has been my go-to prototype tool for websites and applications to create a more realistic and dynamic design since I learnt about components and states. A game-changer is a high-fidelity functional testable prototype, high-fidelity design transfer, and high-fidelity system library/element construction.

What do you dislike most about this product?

The text formatting occasionally has strange errors, and I wish the buttons for states and components were positioned someplace else because I went over them thoroughly when learning the programs. The "paragraph styles" type area might need some improvement, too. I frequently discover that they are difficult to alter, difficult to locate the correct buttons, and occasionally they don't seem to change all the type in that "style," as you could with Indesign.

What recommendations would you give to someone considering this product?

This is essentially the same as Figma or XD for creating wireframes, and they may even be simpler. However, if you want to create a stunning working prototype and use a program from wireframe to prototyping, I highly recommend InVision because of its strength and usability once you get past the learning curve.