UI/UX design for web and mobile products, tested before it is built

UX design decides how a product works, while UI design decides how it looks and behaves on screen. UX covers research, user flows, information architecture and the order of steps in a task. UI covers layout, typography, colour, components and interaction details. The two overlap constantly, so we treat them as one discipline: a clear flow still fails on an unreadable screen, and a polished screen cannot rescue a confusing flow.

Usually yes, although the research can be small. Teams know their customers' goals well but rarely watch them use the product, and that is where most surprises appear. A few interviews, a review of support tickets and analytics, and a handful of usability sessions on a prototype often reveal problems internal discussion missed. We scale research to the decision being made and skip it where good evidence already exists.

Yes. Design can be a standalone engagement, with your engineers or another supplier building from our work. Our UI/UX specialists join your planning sessions, stay a sprint or two ahead of development and answer questions in your team's channels during the build. Each built screen is reviewed on your staging environment against the design, and differences are logged as tickets. Tokens and component specifications are shaped to your existing code, so nothing has to be rewritten to adopt them.

A design system is a shared set of design tokens, components and usage rules that designers and developers both work from. It becomes worthwhile when more than one person designs or builds screens, when a product spans web and mobile, or when inconsistency is already slowing teams down. For an early MVP we start with a lean component library and grow it into a fuller system as the product and team expand.

We hand over a working kit rather than a folder of images. Design files are organised with named components, consistent layout rules and every state shown, including empty, loading, error and disabled. Tokens for colour, type and spacing are exported in a form that maps to Tailwind CSS or your existing styles, and when we also build the front end, components are documented in Storybook. A walkthrough session lets developers question the logic behind each flow before they estimate the work.

For most rounds, five or six participants from one user group are enough to reveal the main problems in a flow. We give them realistic tasks on a clickable prototype and watch where they hesitate, misread or give up. If the product serves distinct groups, such as customers and staff, each group gets its own round. Sessions run remotely or in person with your team observing, findings become specific changes, and critical flows are retested after revision.

We design against WCAG 2.2 AA from the wireframe stage. That means checking colour contrast as palettes are chosen, specifying focus order and visible focus styles, sizing touch targets generously, labelling every input and icon, and never relying on colour alone to carry meaning. Components are annotated with accessible names and keyboard behaviour so developers implement them correctly, and QA engineers verify the built screens with screen readers.

A UX audit reviews a live product against usability heuristics, accessibility checks and your analytics, then ranks what to fix. We walk through the key journeys on desktop and mobile, compare drop-off points in analytics with what we observe, read a sample of support tickets and test contrast, focus order and form labels. Each finding records the screen, the problem, the evidence and the likely effort. You receive a ranked list with annotated screenshots and suggested designs for the most serious issues.

Yes, because phones change how people hold, read and interact with a product. Key actions sit within reach of the thumb, gestures and navigation follow iOS and Android conventions, and requests for location, camera or notification access appear when they make sense rather than on first launch. Screens are designed for patchy signal, interrupted sessions and the larger text sizes many people set on their phones. Where an app and a website share a design system, components stay consistent while each platform behaves as its users expect.

Cost depends on how many journeys and screens are in scope, how much research is needed, whether a design system is included and how many platforms you target. A UX audit of one flow is a much smaller piece of work than designing a new product with several user roles. After a discovery call we write a scope and give a fixed quote, so you know the cost before design work begins.

Timelines depend on scope, access to users for research and how quickly stakeholders can review. An audit or redesign of a single key journey typically takes a few weeks, while a full product with research, a prototype and a design system is planned in phases. We share work in progress every one to two weeks, so decisions are made continuously rather than in one large approval at the end.

Yes, by changing it in stages rather than all at once. We start with a UX audit and analytics to find the journeys causing the most friction, redesign those first and release them behind feature flags or to a subset of users where your platform allows. Familiar patterns and labels are kept where they work, and changes are explained inside the product so regular users are not caught off guard.

Yes. Design files are created in, or transferred to, your organisation's workspace, and the component library, tokens and documentation are yours to use and extend. Where we also build the front end, the Storybook library and source code live in your repository. We document naming conventions and usage rules so an in-house designer or another agency can continue the work without starting again.