The largest usability problems are almost never visual. They are structural: information organised around how the data is stored rather than how the task is done, flows that require holding too much in your head, and forms that ask for everything at once. Those are decided long before anyone opens a design tool, which is why research and structure come first.

Who this is for

Products where support keeps answering the same "how do I" question. Applications with high drop-off at a specific step. Teams whose product has grown feature by feature without a coherent structure.

Problems we solve

Drop-off at a known step. Analytics showing where users leave, with no diagnosis of why.
Support answering usability questions. The interface failing to explain itself.
Overwhelming forms. Everything requested at once instead of progressively.
Missing states. No empty, loading or error design, so developers improvise.
Inconsistent components. The same control behaving differently in different places.
Mobile as an afterthought. Desktop layouts stacked rather than designed.

What we build

User research: interviews, task analysis and usability testing
Information architecture and task flows before visual design
Wireframes and clickable prototypes for cheap validation
Design systems with tokens, components and documented usage
Every state designed: default, hover, focus, loading, empty, error, disabled
Mobile layouts designed deliberately rather than derived by stacking
WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility: contrast, focus order, keyboard operation, labelling

How we work

We watch people use the current product before proposing changes, because stated preferences and observed behaviour differ substantially. Prototypes get tested before anything is built. Mobile is designed as its own experience — stacking a desktop layout produces something technically responsive and practically unusable. Empty and error states are designed, since in a new account they are the first thing a user sees.

Technologies we use

Figma for design, prototyping and handoff, design tokens shared with the codebase, Tailwind CSS and shadcn/ui for implementation, and accessibility testing with axe and real screen readers.

Business benefits

Higher completion rates on the flows that matter commercially
Lower support volume as the interface stops needing explanation
Faster development from a system rather than one-off screens
Accessibility that widens reach and reduces legal exposure

Common questions

How many users do we need to test with?

Five well-chosen participants surface the majority of significant usability problems. It is far cheaper than the alternative of finding them after launch.

Can you redesign without rebuilding everything?

Usually. We prioritise by impact and roll changes out incrementally, starting with the flows where drop-off costs most.

Do you deliver code?

We can. Design and implementation in one team removes the handoff gap where detail is usually lost, and it means what ships matches what was designed.

Know where users drop off but not why? A short round of testing usually answers it.

UI / UX Design