Answer.

Historically, analysts described interfaces in words or as screen forms in documents. This led to misunderstandings and frequent revisions, as the visualization of requirements was largely absent. The modern trend is the mandatory use of interactive prototypes (Figma, Axure, Balsamiq), which allow stakeholders and the development team to "see the future" of the product.

Problem: Without visual prototypes, misunderstandings arise even in simple scenarios; the business and the team may interpret textual descriptions differently. Often, during development, issues arise that should have been considered earlier.

Solution: Actively involve all stakeholders during the wireframe agreement phase. It is important not only to create prototypes according to business processes but also to accompany them with explanations of the behavior of each field/element, model typical/non-typical scenarios (edge cases), and gather feedback on them before the task is set for development.

Key features:

Reduction of revisions through early validation of ideas on prototypes
Ability to test user scenarios hands-on even before coding
Simplicity of communication between different roles due to visualization

Trick Questions.

Can one rely solely on textual descriptions of screens if the list of fields is clear?

Answer: No. Even if the fields are known, the structure, order, logic of switching, validators, and mobile adaptation can be understood differently. Prototypes help identify these discrepancies before work starts.

Are wireframes a complete specification for development?

Answer: No, wireframes are a visual foundation. They must be accompanied by behavior scenarios, business rules, and exception handling logic descriptions. Only the combination provides a final technical requirement.

Who is responsible for the approval of prototypes: the analyst or the business?

Answer: The responsibility is shared, but the analyst initiates, organizes clarifications, and brings the parties to consensus. The business confirms the result.

Typical Mistakes and Anti-Patterns

Using prototypes as static images without clarifications on behavior and edge cases
Shifting initiative between the business and development without the analyst's involvement
Ignoring mobile/adaptive cases

Real Life Example

Negative Case: At the start of the project, the client provided a description in the form of a list of fields. During testing only after the release, incorrect error processing scenarios and non-obvious user actions were discovered.

Pros:

Quick start

Cons:

Large number of returns and bugs
Client dissatisfaction

Positive Case: A series of workshops were held where wireframes for each stage were drawn and agreed upon. All edge cases were iteratively worked out until agreement was reached.