简体中文
EnglishWebsite review
This review may include AI-generated content and is not individually verified. Domain, certificate and other facts come from the observed data on this page.
What is WriteMaps?
WriteMaps is an online visual sitemap builder for web professionals and website planners. It lets you map out a site's page hierarchy quickly, add notes and content to individual pages, and share or export the result for review and signoff.
What it does
- Visual sitemap creation: Build page hierarchies with a few clicks instead of formatting diagrams manually.
- Content gathering: Add notes and page content directly to the sitemap, so a client or copywriter can fill it in as the structure develops.
- Sharing and export: Share a sitemap via a unique URL or export it to PDF, which suits client signoff and team review.
Who it suits
It is aimed at UX designers, information architects, project managers and agencies who need to agree a site structure before design or build begins. A freelancer mapping a small brochure site and an in-house team planning a large replatform can both use the same basic workflow.
Visual vs XML sitemaps
These are different things, and WriteMaps addresses the first:
| Type | Purpose | Typical audience |
|---|---|---|
| Visual sitemap | Diagram of intended page hierarchy | Clients, designers, content teams |
| XML sitemap | Machine-readable list of URLs for search engines | Search engines, developers |
If you need an XML sitemap, most modern platforms generate one automatically, or you can create it separately. WriteMaps is for planning and communicating structure, not for producing a search-engine file.
Next step
Start with a rough page list for your next project, build the hierarchy in WriteMaps, then share the URL with one stakeholder and ask whether any page is missing or misplaced. That single review usually surfaces structural problems before design work starts.
How do I create a visual sitemap with WriteMaps?
Create a visual sitemap in WriteMaps by starting a new sitemap, adding pages as boxes in a hierarchy, then filling in notes or content and sharing the result. The page presents it as a browser-based visual builder aimed at web professionals and website planners, with three core jobs: build the structure quickly, collect page content, and share or export the map.
A practical workflow
- Start with the top-level structure. Add your home page, then the main sections you already know you need (for example, Products, About, Contact). WriteMaps is designed so you go from rough ideas to a visible hierarchy in a few clicks rather than formatting a diagram by hand.
- Add child pages under each section. Keep going down a level or two until the structure reflects how visitors will navigate, not your internal org chart. If a branch gets deep, that is usually a sign the section needs splitting.
- Attach notes and content. WriteMaps lets you add notes and gather content against pages, so you can move between pages and paste in copy, headings or content requirements as you go. This is where the tool differs from a plain diagram: the sitemap doubles as a content collection sheet.
- Share for review. You can share the sitemap via a unique URL so a client, copywriter or team member can look at it and give input. The page also describes exporting to PDF, which suits client sign-off or attaching to a project brief.
Who it fits
- Agencies and freelancers who need client sign-off on structure before design starts. Sharing a link is faster than emailing a screenshot that goes stale.
- Content and copy teams who need to see every page that requires copy in one place.
- Product and UX teams mapping a site or app section before wireframes.
If you only need an XML sitemap for search engines, this is the wrong tool — WriteMaps is about the visual, human-readable structure. The page notes that XML sitemaps are typically generated by platforms such as Squarespace, Shopify or WordPress plugins, or by a dedicated generator like XML-Sitemaps.
Decision criteria
Choose a visual sitemap tool when the structure itself is still being debated and you need feedback. Choose a spreadsheet or a plain document when the structure is settled and you only need a page inventory. WriteMaps sits in the first category, with content gathering as a bonus.
Next step
Sketch your top two levels on paper first, then rebuild them in WriteMaps and share the link with one reviewer. That single round trip will tell you whether the tool's sharing and content features match how your team actually works. If you want to compare alternatives before committing, Octopus.do and FlowMapp are established visual sitemapping tools worth a look.
Can I share a WriteMaps sitemap with clients for feedback and sign-off?
Yes. WriteMaps is built around exactly that workflow: you create a visual sitemap, then share it via a unique URL so your team or client can review the structure and sign off. The site also lists PDF export, which is the better option when a client wants a fixed document to mark up or file away.
How the two sharing routes differ
| Route | Best for | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Unique URL | Live review, comments, back-and-forth on structure | Recipients view it online; you need to manage who has the link |
| PDF export | Formal sign-off, archiving, attaching to a proposal | Static — changes after export won't appear in the file |
A practical client scenario
You're planning a 40-page brochure site. You build the hierarchy in WriteMaps, then send the share link to the client's marketing lead. She flags two sections that should sit under "Services" rather than the top level, and you restructure in place. Once the tree is settled, you export a PDF, label it "Sitemap v1 — approved," and get written sign-off before wireframes begin. The same sitemap can then double as a content-gathering worksheet: page owners fill in copy against each node, so the structure and the content plan stay in one place.
Deciding whether it fits
Choose WriteMaps if the priority is fast visual hierarchy work plus lightweight client review, rather than a full design or CMS tool. If your client needs to comment on page layouts rather than structure, a sitemap alone won't carry that conversation — pair it with wireframes. If your platform generates its own XML sitemap automatically, keep that separate: the visual sitemap is for human agreement, the XML file is for search engines.
For a second opinion on the sitemap concept itself, sitemaps.org covers the XML protocol, and XML-Sitemaps is a long-standing option for generating an XML file when your platform doesn't.
What are the differences between an XML sitemap and a visual sitemap?
An XML sitemap is a machine-readable file that lists URLs for search engines; a visual sitemap is a diagram of pages and their hierarchy for people. They serve different audiences and different stages of a project, and you often need both.
XML sitemap
- What it is: A file (commonly
sitemap.xmlorsitemap_index.xml) listing your site's URLs, usually with metadata such as last-modified dates. - Who it's for: Search engine crawlers, not clients or teammates.
- When it matters: After pages exist and are published. It helps crawlers discover URLs and understand freshness.
- How it's made: Often generated automatically by platforms such as Squarespace, Shopify or WordPress plugins; otherwise built manually or with a dedicated generator.
Visual sitemap
- What it is: A diagram of the pages you plan to include and how they nest — home, section, subpage.
- Who it's for: Web professionals, clients, copywriters and stakeholders who need to agree on structure before design and build.
- When it matters: During planning, before content and layouts are finalised. It is a communication and sign-off artefact.
- How it's made: With a visual sitemapping tool. WriteMaps is one example: it describes a visual builder for planning sites, adding notes, gathering page content, and sharing or exporting the map as PDF or a unique URL for client signoff. Those are product details from WriteMaps, not a general rule.
Quick comparison
| XML sitemap | Visual sitemap | |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Search engines | Clients, designers, writers, PMs |
| Format | Text/XML file | Diagram or tree |
| Timing | Post-launch, maintained | Pre-design planning |
| Main job | Crawl discovery | Structure agreement and content planning |
| Typical owner | Developer or platform | UX lead, strategist or PM |
A practical scenario
A small agency wins a site redesign. In week one, the team builds a visual sitemap in a tool like WriteMaps, shares the URL with the client, and lets the copywriter fill page content directly into it. Once the site is built and live, the developer confirms the platform is generating an XML sitemap and submits it in Search Console. The visual map is archived as the record of what was agreed; the XML file keeps working quietly in the background.
How to decide
Ask what the artefact needs to do. If it must be read by a crawler, you need XML. If it must be read, debated and approved by people, you need a visual map. If your platform already generates XML automatically, spend your planning time on the visual version instead.
How much does WriteMaps cost and what plans are available?
WriteMaps does not publish its prices on the page used here, so the exact cost and plan tiers cannot be stated from that material. The site does link to a dedicated Plans page, which is where current pricing and any free-versus-paid distinction would live: WriteMaps.
What the product information does make clear is the shape of the offering. There is a free starting point — the page invites visitors to "start designing for free" — and the tool is aimed at web professionals and website planners who need a visual sitemap rather than an XML file. The feature set centers on three jobs: building a sitemap quickly by clicking rather than formatting, letting a client or copywriter fill in page content, and exporting to PDF or sharing via a unique URL for review and signoff.
That combination matters for how you judge the price. If you only need a one-off diagram, a free tier or a general diagramming tool may be enough. If you run client projects repeatedly and need content collection plus a shareable link for approval, the paid plan is more likely to earn its cost, because the value is in the review loop rather than the drawing itself.
A practical way to decide
- Check the Plans page for the current tiers, seat limits and whether sharing or PDF export is gated behind payment.
- Compare the monthly cost against the hours you would otherwise spend in a general diagramming tool formatting boxes and chasing content by email.
- If you are a freelancer with occasional projects, test the free option on one real sitemap first.
- If you are an agency or in-house team, ask whether multiple people can access the same sitemap, since the sharing feature is the main collaboration benefit.
For context on the XML side, which WriteMaps does not primarily handle, XML-Sitemaps generates a sitemap.xml file, and many platforms such as WordPress, Squarespace and Shopify produce one automatically. Those are separate concerns from a visual planning tool, so avoid paying for sitemap software to solve a problem your CMS already solves.
Does WriteMaps let me collect page content directly within the sitemap?
Yes. WriteMaps is built around visual sitemaps where you can add notes and gather content on each page, then have a client or copywriter fill those pages in. The page evidence describes it as a tool for planning websites and gathering content, with the ability to skip between sitemap pages while collecting copy. So the content lives inside the same structure as the page hierarchy rather than in a separate document you have to reconcile later.
That matters most for the messy middle of a project: you have agreed a structure, but the words do not exist yet. A practical workflow is to build the sitemap first, drop a note on each page stating what content is needed and who owns it, then share the unique URL so writers and stakeholders work from the same map. Exporting to PDF is useful when you need a fixed version for sign-off; the shared URL is better while content is still changing.
Two trade-offs to weigh. First, this is a planning and communication tool, not a CMS: content collected in a sitemap still has to be moved into the site itself, so treat it as a staging area rather than a publishing destination. Second, if your team already drafts copy in Google Docs or a project tool, adding content in WriteMaps duplicates effort unless you make the sitemap the single source of truth for structure and ownership.
A sensible next step is to test it on one real project: map a ten-page section, add a content note to each page, invite one writer and one client, and see whether the sign-off loop is genuinely faster than emailing a spreadsheet. If it is, extend it to the full site.
Akamai Connected Cloud
Google Workspace
User reviews (0)