12-13-2023, 10:07 AM
I remember when InVision started as a simple services company, primarily offering design tools focused on mobile and web applications. It launched its platform in 2011, aiming to streamline the prototyping process and improve collaboration between designers and developers. The early version of InVision focused on allowing designers to upload static designs, annotate them, and create clickable prototypes. This removed the need for hacky workarounds that typically involved using multiple software to present designs. Its initial focus aligned with industry needs, as traditional methods for sharing design drafts were cumbersome at best. The straightforward interface impressed designers and provided a real-time environment for feedback, which was revolutionary at the time.
As time progressed, InVision modified its offerings. They integrated features like version control and team collaboration tools like comments and notes directly on the design itself. These innovations made remote interactions seamless. A version of InVision called "InVision Studio" aimed to compete more directly with Adobe XD and Figma. This software included additional features, such as advanced animations and motion design, which reflected the industry's shift towards interactive prototypes. This continuous improvement kept InVision relevant, despite fierce competition from other design platforms like Sketch and Figma, which also aimed to enhance collaboration and streamline workflows. Each iteration added depth to the capabilities of designers, enabling them to create high-fidelity prototypes that mimic the final products.
Comparison with Figma
When you compare InVision to Figma, you see specific distinctions. Figma thrives on its cloud-native performance, allowing real-time collaboration among users across the globe. You can edit designs simultaneously, which is a big plus for teams operating in multiple locations. InVision, on the other hand, operates primarily through a web-based platform, offering a distinct experience focused on static uploads and prototyping. That said, InVision shines in its ability to translate static designs into interactive experiences. It leverages "InVision Inspect," which allows developers to pull CSS directly from the designs, making the handoff process smoother than design tools that don't emphasize this feature.
Still, Figma's component system transcends typical design methods due to its modular nature, making design consistency easier to maintain. Components can be reused across different projects without the mess of updating multiple files. Figma's versioning system also excels, letting you easily revert to previous iterations. InVision does incorporate some versioning capabilities, but it can become less intuitive as the complexity of projects increases. I find the balance between design features and collaboration tools crucial, and depending on your team's structure, one might fit better than the other.
Integration Capabilities
Integration plays a significant role in choosing a prototyping tool. InVision offers a robust API and plugins that work well with other tools like Slack and Jira, which enhance team workflows by connecting design feedback to project management apps. It also has integrations with tools like UserTesting, enabling designers to gather user feedback seamlessly. These integrations position InVision not just as a design tool but as part of a larger workflow ecosystem.
Figma, conversely, does this too, but its open platform encourages further integration through community-built plugins. A significant feature of Figma's API is its accessibility; you can customize your workspace in various ways. While InVision's integrations often make transitions a bit smoother, the open nature of Figma allows more flexibility for developers seeking to add custom workflows. I've seen teams leverage Figma's API to automate various aspects of their design process, which is something less common in InVision. Choosing between them may depend on how much you value integration versus a cohesive built-in suite.
Design Systems and Scalability
You can't ignore the importance of design systems in today's development world. InVision provides its "Design System Manager" (DSM) to help teams maintain consistent branding and design practices across multiple projects. It allows users to create a repository for UI components, templates, and guidelines, which assures design fidelity. Through DSM, large organizations can efficiently implement a unified brand experience across countless platforms.
Figma's approach is also compelling, specifically because of its ability to create shared libraries that enable collaborative version control. This means if one team updates a component, it cascades through files where that component is used, which saves significant time and reduces the risk of discrepancies. This type of real-time collaboration fosters consistency across teams, making it easier for remote workers or those in different offices to stay synchronized. Depending on how your organization prioritizes innovation in design, you might find one tool more suitable than the other, especially when scaling up.
Export and Handoff Feasibility
I appreciate how InVision handles handoff to development. With features like InVision Inspect, you can generate developer specifications directly from your designs, which makes it much easier for developers to grab the styles and markup they need. InVision's ability to create prototypes mimicking the final product ensures that developers have a clear guideline on interactions and transitions, a need often overlooked in prototyping.
However, Figma combines design and handoff in a more integrated manner. It allows developers to inspect elements directly within the design environment; this feature streamlines the transition. You can choose layers, check properties, and fetch CSS or Swift code snippets as needed without leaving the design platform. While both tools provide effective solutions for handing off work to developers, I find Figma's embedded approach simplifies the workflow for many teams, especially those who focus on agile methods.
Performance and Usability
Performance varies significantly between InVision and Figma. InVision relies on heavy server-side processing for rendering prototypes, which can sometimes lead to lag, especially when browsing complex projects. As a user, I've felt frustrated when prototypes don't behave as anticipated due to performance issues. You might also find that the user experience becomes clunky with large files, affecting the design review process.
On the contrary, Figma's cloud-based architecture generally offers a more fluid experience. I've found it handles larger files and component-heavy projects more adeptly. User sessions are often smoother, which matters greatly when multiple stakeholders are reviewing projects. I think the focus on improving usability in Figma serves teams better when working on intricate projects. However, the smooth performance mostly hinges on your internet connectivity. While both platforms have their pain points, they'll give you insights into what fits into your specific use case and team dynamics.
Community and Support Ecosystem
The community surrounding a product can significantly shape its evolution and relevance, and both InVision and Figma boast strong user bases. InVision has cultivated a plethora of resources, including tutorials and user forums, which help you navigate its tools. Whether you face technical challenges or need to implement a best practice, their support network can be extremely helpful.
Figma's community features are particularly compelling because of its emphasis on shared knowledge, design templates, and community plugins. You can find user-created resources that not only help you understand the product but also enhance its functionality in ways you might not have anticipated. This community-driven aspect allows you to tap into a wealth of knowledge and soul-search for design inspiration. Depending on how much support you require or how much you want to innovate, you could opt for InVision's structured approach or Figma's community-driven environment.
When you look at InVision and its evolution, it fares well against competition in terms of enhancing design workflows and fostering collaboration, even though the competitors have their advantages. Choosing between these platforms should always consider your team's specific needs and existing workflows. Whether you prioritize collaboration, community resources, handoff processes, or the intricacies of design systems, both tools have merit, and your choice should reflect the dynamics of your team and your project needs.
As time progressed, InVision modified its offerings. They integrated features like version control and team collaboration tools like comments and notes directly on the design itself. These innovations made remote interactions seamless. A version of InVision called "InVision Studio" aimed to compete more directly with Adobe XD and Figma. This software included additional features, such as advanced animations and motion design, which reflected the industry's shift towards interactive prototypes. This continuous improvement kept InVision relevant, despite fierce competition from other design platforms like Sketch and Figma, which also aimed to enhance collaboration and streamline workflows. Each iteration added depth to the capabilities of designers, enabling them to create high-fidelity prototypes that mimic the final products.
Comparison with Figma
When you compare InVision to Figma, you see specific distinctions. Figma thrives on its cloud-native performance, allowing real-time collaboration among users across the globe. You can edit designs simultaneously, which is a big plus for teams operating in multiple locations. InVision, on the other hand, operates primarily through a web-based platform, offering a distinct experience focused on static uploads and prototyping. That said, InVision shines in its ability to translate static designs into interactive experiences. It leverages "InVision Inspect," which allows developers to pull CSS directly from the designs, making the handoff process smoother than design tools that don't emphasize this feature.
Still, Figma's component system transcends typical design methods due to its modular nature, making design consistency easier to maintain. Components can be reused across different projects without the mess of updating multiple files. Figma's versioning system also excels, letting you easily revert to previous iterations. InVision does incorporate some versioning capabilities, but it can become less intuitive as the complexity of projects increases. I find the balance between design features and collaboration tools crucial, and depending on your team's structure, one might fit better than the other.
Integration Capabilities
Integration plays a significant role in choosing a prototyping tool. InVision offers a robust API and plugins that work well with other tools like Slack and Jira, which enhance team workflows by connecting design feedback to project management apps. It also has integrations with tools like UserTesting, enabling designers to gather user feedback seamlessly. These integrations position InVision not just as a design tool but as part of a larger workflow ecosystem.
Figma, conversely, does this too, but its open platform encourages further integration through community-built plugins. A significant feature of Figma's API is its accessibility; you can customize your workspace in various ways. While InVision's integrations often make transitions a bit smoother, the open nature of Figma allows more flexibility for developers seeking to add custom workflows. I've seen teams leverage Figma's API to automate various aspects of their design process, which is something less common in InVision. Choosing between them may depend on how much you value integration versus a cohesive built-in suite.
Design Systems and Scalability
You can't ignore the importance of design systems in today's development world. InVision provides its "Design System Manager" (DSM) to help teams maintain consistent branding and design practices across multiple projects. It allows users to create a repository for UI components, templates, and guidelines, which assures design fidelity. Through DSM, large organizations can efficiently implement a unified brand experience across countless platforms.
Figma's approach is also compelling, specifically because of its ability to create shared libraries that enable collaborative version control. This means if one team updates a component, it cascades through files where that component is used, which saves significant time and reduces the risk of discrepancies. This type of real-time collaboration fosters consistency across teams, making it easier for remote workers or those in different offices to stay synchronized. Depending on how your organization prioritizes innovation in design, you might find one tool more suitable than the other, especially when scaling up.
Export and Handoff Feasibility
I appreciate how InVision handles handoff to development. With features like InVision Inspect, you can generate developer specifications directly from your designs, which makes it much easier for developers to grab the styles and markup they need. InVision's ability to create prototypes mimicking the final product ensures that developers have a clear guideline on interactions and transitions, a need often overlooked in prototyping.
However, Figma combines design and handoff in a more integrated manner. It allows developers to inspect elements directly within the design environment; this feature streamlines the transition. You can choose layers, check properties, and fetch CSS or Swift code snippets as needed without leaving the design platform. While both tools provide effective solutions for handing off work to developers, I find Figma's embedded approach simplifies the workflow for many teams, especially those who focus on agile methods.
Performance and Usability
Performance varies significantly between InVision and Figma. InVision relies on heavy server-side processing for rendering prototypes, which can sometimes lead to lag, especially when browsing complex projects. As a user, I've felt frustrated when prototypes don't behave as anticipated due to performance issues. You might also find that the user experience becomes clunky with large files, affecting the design review process.
On the contrary, Figma's cloud-based architecture generally offers a more fluid experience. I've found it handles larger files and component-heavy projects more adeptly. User sessions are often smoother, which matters greatly when multiple stakeholders are reviewing projects. I think the focus on improving usability in Figma serves teams better when working on intricate projects. However, the smooth performance mostly hinges on your internet connectivity. While both platforms have their pain points, they'll give you insights into what fits into your specific use case and team dynamics.
Community and Support Ecosystem
The community surrounding a product can significantly shape its evolution and relevance, and both InVision and Figma boast strong user bases. InVision has cultivated a plethora of resources, including tutorials and user forums, which help you navigate its tools. Whether you face technical challenges or need to implement a best practice, their support network can be extremely helpful.
Figma's community features are particularly compelling because of its emphasis on shared knowledge, design templates, and community plugins. You can find user-created resources that not only help you understand the product but also enhance its functionality in ways you might not have anticipated. This community-driven aspect allows you to tap into a wealth of knowledge and soul-search for design inspiration. Depending on how much support you require or how much you want to innovate, you could opt for InVision's structured approach or Figma's community-driven environment.
When you look at InVision and its evolution, it fares well against competition in terms of enhancing design workflows and fostering collaboration, even though the competitors have their advantages. Choosing between these platforms should always consider your team's specific needs and existing workflows. Whether you prioritize collaboration, community resources, handoff processes, or the intricacies of design systems, both tools have merit, and your choice should reflect the dynamics of your team and your project needs.
