FigJam vs. Intuiface

It is well suited when people use it to sketch the first wireframes of the UX, like the Breadboarding technique from Basecamp. I used to work like that when modifying some UX. Our designers used to sketch over our current experience wireframe, and then we could discuss it by using the comments in Figjam or the Call feature at FigJam. That made it easy to discuss it. When building up group boards to discuss ideas, I use Miro, once it has more native pre-sets that help conducts the discussion.

I did not have much application experience in this field. therefore, it seems to be a successful application from the point of view of the beginning. but although it is originally an interface development application, its interface is not user-friendly. Most features come from basic code written in microsoft visual studio. and simple buttons and shapes were added to the application without being designed.

Incentivized

• One file, auto updated, no need to get latest
• Easy to preview
• Lack of client is benefit to some (not me)

Incentivized

• Less Rigidity
• Ability to work with Different Documents
• A light version of Figma

Incentivized

Positive: FigJam is cheaper than Miro and allows connecting with FigJam, where we design our user interfaces. FigJam is more complete and visually appealing than draw.io, although draw.io is free. FigJam allows calls, which both competitors do not. Negative: Miro has more pre-set diagrams than FigJam and they are native and easy to use FigJam is paid, while draw.io is not.

• I believe that creating professional projects inside a web app feels amateurish.

Incentivized