From my own experience, I assume you might categorise the site design process into two sections: the style procedure that doesn't make use of a mockups, along with the the one that does. Previously being for both sides with this fence, We have an awareness of methods these two processes work and although designing without a wireframe does work, I'd personally ought to vote to be replaced by them.
Wireframing, the roll-out of a "visual blueprint", doesn't need to be overly complicated. At most elementary, I have seen wireframes that are simply are compilation of post-it notes together with the gui (UI) elements utilized them. They are then placed onto a piece of paper to exhibit the structural layout. Compare this to wireframes produced through design software and you will visit a a little more refined wireframe with the latter, but no matter how you wish to create your structural model, the result is always precisely the same. The bottomline is, it shows yourself, the buyer or some other party where things will probably be situated on the page.
This is sometimes a real-time saver if you're producing a website for the client. Finding comfort my events of located on "side A" from the fence, when creating a website for a client Irrrve never employed to perform any wireframing process in those days. The entire process consisted of: gathering requirements, spec'ing your website, allowing the graphical UI then building the web site when the design had been agreed. The most important flaw I came across within this process will be the potential for the consumer planning to alter the main layout quite considerably. I'd don't have any problem if they simply want to tweak things every now and then e.g. colours, make text larger, then add more images here and there, make video somewhat bigger (the standard stuff); however it was a ton more painful should they then want to move a number of things about for the page that directly affected the "page template". Jumping to "side B" of the fence and producing the wired layout to the site signifies that layout could be agreed beforehand in the knowledge that in the event the UI design is presented, you could then only need to update the usual stuff.
Being forced to Spell it for Clients
Even when presenting a wireframe into a client though, I have had occasions where they would be unwilling to sign this part off because that it looks very "blocky" and "plain". "Yes it does" can be my immediate reply to this because these blocks determine where we're going to put things on the lovely page to ensure that if you get back to me later on when you have reviewed the graphical design, you cannot then notify me exactly why is the navigation up here instead of there? Believe me, I've had clients like this before so even if to become a wireframe, there might be when you'll still need to spell out that this is solely to get the layout correct to start with, then we'll apply the pretty little into it afterwards.
A collection of Design Software
You don't have to necessarily know on your path around Adobe software to be able to produce some decent wireframes. I prefer a web-based tool, Cacoo, to generate mine. This online software enables you to drag and drop pre-created elements to your page. This could save time and effort along the way.?
Like with everything web related, everyone may have their unique opinion about this topic, but my personal preference is by using a wireframe each and every time I'm designing a website. Whether it is for a client and my own site, no matter mainly because it implies that the UI design is hasten because you're effectively working from the template.
If you are working on a job for a client, then looking to have Joe Bloggs sign over wires before you begin for the UI is a part of this design procedure that I would call fundamental to making sure that you maintain good budget and personal time management with a project.