The UX of Mockingbird Prototyping Tool

For the last few weeks I have been using Balsamiq.  So far, I am pretty happy and learning more about it each day.  Today, I saw a new tool that is taking the same general approach.  It’s called Mockingbird.  I want to give the tool the benefit of the doubt.  Right now, it only has a fraction of the functionality of Balsamiq.  So let’s ignore that part.

My main complaint is: Where is the charm?  Balsamiq has oodles of love baked in with it’s hand crafted design style.  This just looks like Arial and black strokes.

Maybe this tool will get alot better as they add in the ability to customize things.  Right now, it just feels like a weak copy of Balsamiq.  The fact that it doesn’t use Flash is meaningless to me.  It’s a prototype.  It’s not final code.

I am just trying to keep it real.  No one sponsors me.  Mockingbird, if you want to succeed, yu either need to have more functionality or more charm.  Looking at Balsamiq, I would probably try for the former.  Keep up the good work.  I will follow their blog and watch progress.

2 replies on “The UX of Mockingbird Prototyping Tool”

Thanks for taking the time to try Mockingbird out.

As for functionality, we do have several features planned, so I hope you’ll stay tuned for those. I understand why the lack of Flash by itself might not be exciting to everyone, but it’s definitely a boon to many people whose systems (like my Macbook!) don’t play well with Flash.

Of course it’s all down to preference and we completely understand that different tools suit different people, but we’re glad you’re open to following our progress!

P.S. Also, I’ve been meaning to rant about Arial, so thanks for giving me an opportunity. Like many others, we’re not particular fans of Helvetica’s ugly stepsister. The reason we’re using it is actually that we needed a font that both Windows and Mac users have installed by default so that previews shared from a Windows machine to a Mac and vice versa wouldn’t render differently.

Whatya think?