Service overview
A screen can look immaculate and still lose people. They cannot find the one button that matters, the form asks for something they do not have to hand, or the second step quietly assumes they understood the first. None of that shows up in a flat mockup. It shows up in the numbers, months later.
So we design the path before we design the pixels: what someone came to do, the shortest honest route to it, and where they are likely to stall. The screens come after that, and by then most of the argument has already been settled.
What's included
One scope, agreed in writing before anything starts, covering research, flows, screens and the component library they are built from. If the scope grows we agree it with you first, so there is no invoice you have not already seen.
An interface is working when nobody has to be told how it works. Every instruction you have to write is a design you have not finished.
- Audit of what you have today
- User flows for the paths that matter
- Low-fidelity wireframes first
- High-fidelity screens in Figma
- A component library, not loose files
- States for empty, loading and error
- Responsive from a 320px phone upward
- Developer handover with real specs
How it looks in practice
Two interfaces from the studio's own shelf. Different problems, same discipline: find the one job the screen exists to do, then remove whatever is competing with it.
Frequently asked
The four that come up on nearly every first call. If yours is not here, ask it. You will get a straight answer, not a brochure.
Often not. If you have someone drawing screens, what is usually missing is the layer underneath: the flows, the states, the naming. We are happy to do only that and hand it to the designer you already have, rather than replacing work that is perfectly good.
A Figma file with the flows, the screens and a component library, plus a written handover covering the states and the behaviour a static screen cannot show. If we are building it too, that same file becomes the build reference rather than a separate document nobody reads.
Yes, and it goes better when we do. We name components the way your codebase names them, spec the awkward states rather than leaving them to be guessed at, and stay reachable through the build for the questions that only surface once someone is writing the code.
We put it in front of people who are not us, five or six of them, on the real flow, before anything is built. That is early enough that changing it is a conversation rather than a rebuild. Where you already have analytics, we read those first.