UI/UX Design

Not every project justifies a full research programme, and pretending otherwise inflates budgets. What every project justifies is talking to a handful of actual users before committing to a direction. Five sessions will surface the majority of serious usability problems, which is enough to avoid the expensive mistakes.

Where you already have analytics, support tickets or session recordings, that is research you have already paid for. We read it first. The questions your support team answers repeatedly are a map of exactly where the interface is failing.

We design to WCAG 2.2 AA: sufficient colour contrast, visible focus states, targets large enough to hit reliably, forms that work with a keyboard and announce their errors properly to screen readers. This is a legal requirement in a growing number of markets and a straightforward commercial one everywhere else.

Retrofitting accessibility is substantially more expensive than designing for it, because it usually means revisiting colour, layout and component behaviour simultaneously. Getting the palette and the component library right at the start costs almost nothing by comparison.

Isolated screen mockups fall apart the moment developers hit a state nobody drew — empty lists, long names, server errors, partial data. We design the system rather than the screenshots: a documented set of components with their real states, spacing and typography scales, and rules for how they combine.

That artefact is what makes a product stay coherent as it grows. It also removes an enormous amount of ambiguity from the build, because engineers stop guessing what a designer intended and start assembling from defined pieces.