Purpose: Wireframing is used to explore and validate structural layout, interaction flow, and design specs before high-fidelity execution.
Design Thinking Phase: Prototype
Time: 45–60 min sketch session + 1–2 hours spec documentation
Difficulty: ⭐⭐
When to use:To map and test core user journeys early in the design processTo align stakeholders on functional requirements before visual stylingTo iterate rapidly with low setup cost and high feedback velocity
What it is
Wireframing is a low-fidelity design method used to represent the layout, information architecture, and functional intent of digital screens or experiences. It acts as a blueprint for product interaction, enabling real-time feedback, fast iteration, and inter-team alignment before visual design and development begin.
📺 Video by NNgroup. Embedded for educational reference.
Why it matters
Wireframes bring clarity during the ambiguous early stages of product development. They allow designers and cross-functional partners to agree on structure, interaction logic, and key functionality without being distracted by colour, branding, or pixel details. Used well, wireframes support agile workflows, de-risk complex builds, and create a shared language between design, engineering, and stakeholders.
When to use
- Scoping a new feature or MVP flow with limited research time
- Validating IA and layout options through quick user testing
- Preparing functional spec documentation for Dev handoff
Benefits
- Rich Insights: Helps explore UX logic before investing in visuals
- Flexibility: Suitable for solo ideation or large-scale design ops
- User Empathy: Reveals friction in user flows before users touch the product
How to use it
- Start with 2–3 key user goals or tasks. Prioritise top journeys first.
- Sketch wireframes using pen/paper, FigJam, Excalidraw, or a lo-fi tool.
- Use grey boxes, basic copy, and simple components. Avoid final styling.
- Label interactions, inputs, and dynamic behaviours clearly (e.g., modals, empty states).
- Validate with peers, PMs, or users through rapid feedback sessions.
- When stable, convert into annotated wireframes or specs using tools like Figma or UXPin.
Example Output
The designer creates a 4-screen wireframe flow for a new appointment booking feature:
- Screen 1: Available times with filters and "Select" CTA
- Screen 2: Details form with dynamic field validation
- Screen 3: Confirmation summary with reschedule option
- Screen 4: Success screen with calendar integration notice
Each screen includes annotations for interaction types, error handling, and responsive behaviour. Ready for user testing and team review.
Common Pitfalls
- Over-designing too early: Adding branding, colour, or detail too soon can derail feedback.
- Missing interactivity cues: Skipping annotations leads to ambiguity in next steps or logic.
- Not involving engineers: Wireframes are an opportunity to resolve feasibility issues upfront — bring Eng in early.
10 Design-Ready AI Prompts for Wireframing – UX/UI Edition
How These Prompts Work (C.S.I.R. Framework)
Each of the templates below follows the C.S.I.R. method — a proven structure for writing clear, effective prompts that get better results from ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or any other LLM.
C.S.I.R. stands for:
- Context: Who you are and the UX situation you're working in
- Specific Info: Key design inputs, tasks, or constraints the AI should consider
- Intent: What you want the AI to help you achieve
- Response Format: The structure or format you want the AI to return (e.g. checklist, table, journey map)
Level up your career with smarter AI prompts.Get templates used by UX leaders — no guesswork, just results.Design faster, research smarter, and ship with confidence.First one’s free. Unlock all 10 by becoming a member.
Prompt Template 1: “Evaluate a Wireframe for Interaction Gaps”
Evaluate a Wireframe for Interaction Gaps
Context: You are a Senior Product Designer reviewing a wireframe flow for a new feature within a complex SaaS dashboard.
Specific Info: The wireframe includes 4 screens, key modals, and conditional logic based on user role (admin, viewer).
Intent: Detect interaction issues, missing feedback states, or usability gaps before high-fidelity design.
Response Format: List each screen with identified gaps, risks, and suggest UX improvements.
If user roles or interaction conditions are unclear, clarify before analysis.
Propose one follow-up step to validate assumptions via design or testing.
Prompt Template 2: “Map a Clickable Prototype Strategy”
Map a Clickable Prototype Strategy
Context: You are a UX strategist preparing a Figma prototype for stakeholder walkthrough and early user feedback.
Specific Info: There are 7 screens in the flow, including decision branches and confirmation states.
Intent: Build an interactive prototype that demonstrates the intended user journey and key interactions.
Response Format: Provide a prioritised list of screens to connect, hotspots to include, and what micro-interactions should be simulated.
If user journey goals are unclear, ask for them first.
Suggest a follow-up idea to test one risky assumption with users.
Prompt Template 3: “Generate Component Specs from Wireframes”
Generate Component Specs from Wireframes
Context: You are working in a cross-functional squad preparing for dev handoff.
Specific Info: Wireframes have established button groups, input fields, and notifications but lack component specs.
Intent: Turn lo-fi wireframes into a component table to guide front-end build.
Response Format: Create a table with component name, behaviour, states, and data requirements.
Clarify how many components are reused vs unique.
Suggest a follow-up to handle edge-case behaviours or responsive states.
Prompt Template 4: “Design an Empty State for a Core Screen”
Design an Empty State for a Core Screen
Context: You are designing a wireframe for a search results screen in an e-commerce admin panel.
Specific Info: Users may encounter zero results due to filters, typos, or lack of inventory.
Intent: Create a persuasive, helpful empty state that improves UX and encourages next action.
Response Format: Return layout guidance, copywriting suggestions, and fallback actions to include.
If product types or user goals are not defined, provide assumptions.
Propose follow-up variations for new vs returning users.
Prompt Template 5: “Audit Mobile Wireframe for Accessibility Issues”
Audit Mobile Wireframe for Accessibility Issues
Context: You are reviewing mobile wireframes for a public service app targeting a broad user base.
Specific Info: Includes 5 core screens focusing on form entry, content cards, and basic navigation.
Intent: Identify barriers to access for users with low vision, limited dexterity, or screen reader use.
Response Format: Provide issue list per screen with WCAG guideline references and suggested improvements.
Clarify if the content style and tap targets follow platform guidelines.
Suggest a follow-up test to validate improvements with accessibility tools.
Prompt Template 6: “Translate Wireframes into Dev-Ready Acceptance Criteria”
Translate Wireframes into Dev-Ready Acceptance Criteria
Context: You are a UX Lead working with PMs and Engineers during sprint planning.
Specific Info: The wireframes cover a new onboarding flow with field validation, error states, and tooltips.
Intent: Create user story-level acceptance criteria based on screen flows and edge cases.
Response Format: Bullet list of acceptance criteria grouped by screen or component, ready for Jira/task creation.
Ask if dev team prefers Gherkin or simple format suggestions.
Propose a follow-up to validate these with QA.
Prompt Template 7: “List UX Questions from a Wireframe Walkthrough”
List UX Questions from a Wireframe Walkthrough
Context: You just finished a design review session with early-stage wireframes for a client portal upgrade.
Specific Info: Screens include dashboard, task assignment, user switching, and progress bars.
Intent: Document open UX questions raised during discussion that need validation or iteration.
Response Format: Grouped list of questions with owner, next action, and impact level.
Suggest one workshop exercise to explore highest-impact UX issue.
Prompt Template 8: “Improve Wireframe Copy and Microcopy”
Improve Wireframe Copy and Microcopy
Context: You’re preparing mid-fi wireframes for funding presentation and internal review.
Specific Info: Includes CTAs, instructional text, placeholders, field labels, status messages.
Intent: Polish language to improve clarity, persuasion, and alignment with UX tone goals.
Response Format: Revised snippets grouped by screen/state, with justification and tone note.
Ask if tone guide or voice principles are available.
Suggest a follow-up for localising tricky terms.
Prompt Template 9: “Redesign a Flow Based on Wireframe Pain Points”
Redesign a Flow Based on Wireframe Pain Points
Context: You received user feedback highlighting friction in the account setup wireframe flow.
Specific Info: Issues cited include unclear progress indication, missing back buttons, and form overload.
Intent: Re-sequence the flow to reduce drop-off and confusion.
Response Format: New screen order and flow logic with annotations on improvements.
If core user role is unclear (admin vs client), clarify impact.
Propose next step to prototype and revalidate changes.
Prompt Template 10: “Generate Variants for a Critical Wireframe Screen”
Generate Variants for a Critical Wireframe Screen
Context: You’re ideating layout options for a payments summary screen in a cross-border fintech app.
Specific Info: Constraints include limited screen space, real-time updates, and localisation needs.
Intent: Explore 3–5 layout variants with different component emphases and user guidance strategy.
Response Format: Sketch-style description or visual-tier plan of each option, with pros/cons.
Ask if user personas or primary user goal are confirmed.
Offer advice on low-cost testing to choose the direction.
Recommended Tools
- Figma – Collaborative design & prototyping
- Excalidraw – Lo-fi sketching with team links
- UXPin – Interactive prototyping with logic
- Bubbles – Stakeholder feedback on wireframes
