Research before opinion
We start by watching people use what exists: session recordings, funnel data, support tickets and interviews with people who actually buy. Most redesigns skip this and rebuild the same problems in a nicer typeface.
Most redesigns are opinion dressed as strategy. Ours start by watching people use what you already have.
UX decides how something works and whether people can complete what they came to do. UI decides how it looks and responds. The difference between a UI UX agency worth hiring and one selling decoration is whether they can tell you what would count as success before they start, and whether they test with real users rather than presenting taste as evidence.
We start by watching people use what exists: session recordings, funnel data, support tickets and interviews with people who actually buy. Most redesigns skip this and rebuild the same problems in a nicer typeface.
Information architecture, user flows and wireframes come before any visual design. If the structure is wrong, polish does not fix it, and finding that out after the visuals are signed off is the expensive way to learn it.
Components, states, spacing and type scale, documented, so the tenth screen matches the first and your developers are not guessing. This is what separates a design that survives a roadmap from one that drifts in two sprints.
Five to eight users on a prototype find most of what is wrong, at a fraction of the cost of shipping it and learning from your metrics. We run the sessions and change the design based on what happened.
Contrast, keyboard navigation, visible focus, labelled fields and correct heading structure, built in rather than retrofitted. Retrofitting costs several times what building it in does.
Specs, tokens, states and edge cases documented, with us available while it is built. A design that has not accounted for the empty state, the error state and the very long name gets improvised in code.
| UX | UI | |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Can they do what they came for? | Does it look and feel right? |
| Output | Flows, IA, wireframes, prototypes | Visual design, components, states |
| Fails as | People cannot complete the task | It works but looks untrustworthy |
| Tested by | Usability sessions, funnel data | Review, contrast checks, device testing |
| Skipped when | Budget is tight, and it costs the most | Rarely skipped, because it is visible |
In this market UX is the part most often quietly dropped, because it is invisible in a portfolio. A beautiful interface that people cannot use is the most common result.
| Ask them | A good answer sounds like | Walk away if |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns the work and files? | You do, unconditionally, in the contract | Ownership depends on staying with them |
| Can I see three live examples? | URLs you can open and check yourself | Screenshots and a portfolio PDF |
| What is explicitly not included? | A written list with change pricing agreed | Everything is included, which means nothing is defined |
| How will we know it worked? | A metric agreed before the work starts | They show you the visuals again |
The last question is the one that separates most of the field, because answering it commits them to a number.
An audit frequently shows three specific fixes would recover more than a rebuild. An agency that has never recommended the smaller job sells the same project to everyone.
If usability testing appears as an add-on you can decline, the design is being shipped on opinion. Five users is not expensive and finds most of what is wrong.
Task completion, conversion at a step, drop-off, time to complete. Named before the work, measured after. Without that, nobody can say whether it worked.
UX is how it works: what someone is trying to do, the steps involved and whether they get there. UI is how it looks and responds. A product can have excellent UI and fail on UX, and that combination is common enough to be a genre.
We can design without research and you should expect a worse result. Research is what separates a design that solves your problem from one that solves a problem we imagined. If budget is tight we compress it rather than cut it.
Five to eight per round finds the large majority of usability problems. More users mostly re-find the same issues. Several smaller rounds as the design develops beats one large round at the end.
The documented set of components, tokens and rules your interface is built from. You need one once more than one person is designing or building. Below that it is overhead you will not use.
Yes, and it works better than a handoff. We deliver specs, tokens, states and edge cases, then stay available during the build, because the questions that decide whether a design survives all arrive during implementation.
We agree the metric before starting, usually task completion, conversion at a specific step, or drop-off. Then we measure after. An agency that cannot tell you what would count as success beforehand is selling decoration.
Frequently the right answer is fixing. An audit often shows a handful of changes to the pages carrying traffic will recover more than a rebuild, at a fraction of the cost and risk.
We build to WCAG 2.2 AA as a default: contrast, keyboard navigation, visible focus, labelled fields and heading structure. If you need a formal compliance audit we will tell you where our work ends and a specialist audit begins.
Send us what you are trying to fix and we will tell you what it takes, what it costs, and whether we are the right people for it. If we are not, we will say so.