Choose the Right Inbox
Sending to the right address gets your message to the right person and cuts our response time in half. Use the dedicated inboxes below rather than a general catch-all. Each inbox is monitored daily by a specific member of our editorial team.
Factual Corrections
Found an error in a review — wrong pricing, outdated feature description, or an incorrect rating? Our editorial commitment is to accuracy above all else. We investigate every reported inaccuracy against primary sources.
Vendor Inquiries
Are you a tool vendor with a product update, a new pricing tier, or a significant new feature that our review hasn't yet captured? Send us the details and we'll queue an update to the relevant page.
Media & Press
Journalists, podcast producers, and content creators looking to cite our research, request a quote, or arrange an interview with our editorial team should use this inbox. Press responses are prioritised.
General Feedback
Reader suggestions, UX feedback about the site, ideas for new comparison articles, or anything else that doesn't fit the other categories. We genuinely read and discuss all reader feedback in our weekly team meeting.
Send Us a Message
Prefer a form over email? We're building a fully functional contact form to make it even easier to get in touch. In the meantime, use the direct email addresses listed above — they're monitored every business day, and messages sent by email are processed in exactly the same way as form submissions would be.
What Happens After You Contact Us
We take every genuine inquiry seriously, and we follow a structured process to ensure that corrections, feedback, and press requests are handled consistently and transparently. Here is exactly what happens when your message arrives in our inbox.
Message Received and Triaged
Every incoming email is reviewed by a human editor — not a filter, not a support bot. Messages are categorised by inquiry type (correction, vendor, press, general) and assigned to the most relevant team member. Automated or AI-generated outreach is identified and archived without response.
Within 2 hours on business daysInvestigation Begins
For factual corrections, the assigned editor revisits the original source material — product documentation, official pricing pages, or first-party changelog announcements. We never rely on secondhand reports alone. For vendor updates, we cross-reference the claim against our own testing notes. For press requests, we assess the scope and format of the coverage before responding.
Same business day for correctionsDecision and Action
If a correction is verified, the relevant page is updated with an inline correction note and a revised "Last Updated" timestamp. Pages that receive material corrections are flagged in our editorial log for expedited re-testing at the next review cycle. Rejected corrections receive a brief explanation of why the existing content is considered accurate.
1–3 business daysWe Respond to You
Once the investigation is complete, we send a personal reply that explains what action was taken (or why no action was taken). For accepted corrections, we include a link to the updated page. We do not send automated acknowledgment emails — your first reply is from a real editor with a real update on your inquiry.
Within 48 hours of first contactTransparency Record
All accepted corrections are logged in our internal editorial transparency record. We plan to publish a public correction log on the site in late 2026. In the meantime, each updated page includes an "Editorial corrections" footer note where relevant, so readers can see the history of any changes made.
OngoingWhat We Don't Respond To
Our editorial team is small and focuses its energy on inquiries that genuinely serve our readers. To be transparent about our editorial boundaries, here are the types of messages we receive but will not respond to. If your message falls into one of these categories, please know it won't receive a reply — not because we're dismissive, but because responding would compromise the editorial standards that make our content trustworthy.
Sponsored Content Requests
We do not publish sponsored articles, sponsored reviews, sponsored roundups, or any content produced in exchange for payment or gifts. If your message includes phrases such as "sponsored post opportunity", "native advertising", "content partnership", or any variation, it will not receive a reply. This policy is absolute and has never had an exception.
Link Exchange Requests
We do not participate in reciprocal link schemes, three-way link exchanges, link insertion requests, or any arrangement where editorial links are exchanged for money or for incoming links. All outbound links on wireframingtools.org are placed solely because they add genuine value to our readers. Requests to add, change, or remove links for SEO purposes will not be entertained.
AI-Generated Outreach
We receive a growing volume of messages that are clearly generated by AI tools — highly generic, templated language, vague references to "your recent article", or requests that could apply to any website. Our editors can identify these messages reliably. We archive them without response. If you're using AI to assist in drafting your inquiry, please personalise it significantly before sending — we appreciate genuine human communication.
Requests to Improve Rankings for Payment
Our editorial rankings are determined by our hands-on scoring methodology, which you can read in full at wireframingtools.org/methodology/. We do not accept any payment to influence tool rankings, comparison positions, or editorial scores. Such requests are reported to our editorial board.
Unsolicited Press Releases
We do cover new product launches and major feature updates when they are relevant to our readers, but we do this on our own schedule and based on reader interest — not on the basis of unsolicited press release distribution. If you have a specific, targeted pitch that is genuinely relevant to wireframing and UX design, send it to [email protected] with a clear subject line. Bulk PR distribution will not receive a response.
Guidance for Tool Vendors
We review wireframing tools independently — we purchase plans ourselves, create test projects, and score tools against our published five-axis methodology. We do not accept free access in exchange for positive coverage. However, we recognise that our reviews can occasionally become outdated as products evolve, and we are committed to keeping our content accurate.
If you represent a wireframing or UX design tool and want to submit a factual correction request, here is the information you should include to ensure the fastest possible response:
URL of the specific page on wireframingtools.org that contains the information you believe is incorrect. A direct link cuts investigation time significantly.
A direct quote of the exact claim you believe is wrong, copied verbatim from our review. This removes any ambiguity about what you are contesting.
The accurate information as you believe it to be stated clearly and concisely.
A link to official documentation — your pricing page, help centre, changelog, or product page — that supports the corrected information. We do not accept marketing copy as evidence; we require verifiable documentation.
The date the change took effect, if you are reporting a product update (for example, a pricing change or a new feature that was released after our review was published).
Your name and role at the company. We require that vendor contacts identify themselves — anonymous vendor corrections are not actioned.
If your tool is not yet listed on wireframingtools.org and you believe it should be considered for a review, you can submit a brief overview to [email protected]. Our editorial team evaluates new tool submissions on a quarterly basis. Inclusion is not guaranteed and is determined entirely by reader relevance and editorial judgment — not by the vendor's interest in being featured.
We do not provide review copies of our draft content for vendor comment before publication. We believe this practice — common at less independent review sites — compromises editorial integrity. Vendors see the final published content at the same time as our readers.
Media Kit & Press Inquiries
wireframingtools.org is an independent editorial publication covering the wireframing and UX design tool category. Our research and reviews are cited by design publications, UX educators, and product teams around the world. We welcome well-targeted press inquiries and are happy to make our editorial team available for quotes, interviews, and data citations.
Editorial Team
Our editorial team is a group of practising UX designers, product managers, and design system specialists. Full bios are available on our About page. For press purposes, brief profiles of our key contributors are listed below.
Maya Chen
Editor-in-Chief, UX Research Lead7 years in UX design, formerly at enterprise SaaS companies. Leads tool testing methodology and oversees all editorial scoring. Available for quotes on wireframing best practices, tool selection, and the UX design tool market.
James Okafor
Senior Reviewer, Collaboration & TeamsProduct manager with a specialism in design-to-development handoff workflows. Leads reviews of enterprise and team-focused tools. Available to discuss collaboration features, agile design workflows, and design system tooling.
Sofia Andersen
AI Tools Specialist, ResearcherFocused on emerging AI-assisted design tools. Tracks the AI wireframing space closely and leads our AI tools coverage. Available to discuss AI-generated wireframes, prompt-to-design tools, and the future of low-fidelity prototyping.
We can provide journalists and researchers with access to our full scoring spreadsheets, anonymised reader survey data, and our internal testing notes for any reviewed tool on request. All data use must attribute wireframingtools.org and include a link to the relevant review page. We do not grant rights to reproduce our full review text — short quotations with attribution are permitted under standard journalistic fair use.
Frequently Asked Questions
The most common questions we receive about contacting our editorial team. If your question is not answered here, use the general inbox at [email protected].
Our editorial team aims to respond to all genuine inquiries within 48 hours on business days. High-priority requests — particularly factual corrections and deadline-driven press inquiries — are typically addressed within 24 hours. We do not send automated acknowledgment messages; your first reply is from a human editor. General feedback may take up to five business days during busy periods. We do not respond to weekends or public holidays, so messages received on Friday afternoons may not be acknowledged until Monday.
Email [email protected] with the URL of the page containing the error, a direct quote of the exact claim you believe is wrong, the correct information, and a link to official documentation that supports your correction. Corrections without supporting evidence take significantly longer to investigate. If the correction is verified, we update the page within five business days and reply to confirm the change has been made. If we cannot verify the correction, we explain our reasoning in our reply.
No — and this policy has never had an exception. wireframingtools.org does not publish sponsored articles, paid reviews, or paid rankings of any kind. Our editorial positions are determined exclusively by hands-on testing scored against our published five-axis methodology. We do use affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission if you click through to a tool and purchase a plan. Affiliate relationships are disclosed clearly on every page that contains such links, and they have zero influence on our editorial scores or rankings. A tool we genuinely do not recommend will never appear near the top of our rankings regardless of affiliate commission rates.
Vendors can contact us at [email protected] to flag significant product updates — new pricing tiers, major new features, or corrections to information we have published. We read every vendor submission, though we cannot guarantee a response to every message. We do not guarantee coverage of tools that write to us; our editorial decisions about which tools to review and in what order are based on reader demand and editorial judgment. Vendor outreach does not fast-track a review or improve a score.
Follow Us Elsewhere
We share tool updates, new review announcements, wireframing tips, and UX design commentary across a small number of channels. These are not high-frequency broadcast accounts — we only post when we have something genuinely useful to share. Please note that social channels are not monitored for editorial inquiries; use the email addresses above for anything you need a response to.
Our RSS feed at
wireframingtools.org/feed.xmlincludes all new reviews and major updates. This is the most reliable way to stay current with our content if you prefer not to use social media.We are also building a community newsletter that will send a monthly digest of new reviews, significant tool updates, and curated wireframing resources. If you are interested in being on the early access list, email [email protected] with the subject line "Newsletter early access" and we will add you to the waitlist.