UX / UI Design
Good interface design is mostly about removing the moments where someone hesitates. We map the path your users actually take, then design screens that keep them moving along it.
Design starts with the task, not the screen
Before anything gets drawn, the useful question is what the person in front of the screen is trying to do. Compare two products before buying one. Find out whether you deliver to their address. Cancel something without calling anyone. Check a number they half remember.
Those tasks determine the structure. A page that serves a visitor still deciding whether to trust you needs different content, in a different order, from a page serving someone who has already decided and wants to get it done. Designing without knowing which one you are serving produces a screen that half works for both.
This is also why we ask for access to whatever evidence already exists. Analytics show where people leave. Support tickets show what confused them enough to write in. Both are more honest than an internal opinion about what users want.
Where interfaces actually lose people
The failures are rarely dramatic. They are small hesitations that accumulate:
A decision demanded too early. Asking someone to pick a plan or a variant before they have been given the information to choose reliably produces either an abandonment or a wrong choice they later complain about.
Labels written from the inside. Navigation that uses your internal names for things is invisible to someone who does not work at your company.
Forms that ask for more than they need. Every additional field costs completions. Some of them are worth it; most are there because nobody has questioned them since the form was made.
No visible way back. A step that traps someone, with no obvious escape, converts a moment of doubt into a closed tab.
Missing states. The interface is designed for the case where everything works. Then a search returns nothing, a payment fails, a list is empty on the first day, and the screen has nothing sensible to say.
None of these need a redesign to fix. They need someone to notice them.
Structure before surface
We work in wireframes first, deliberately without colour or imagery, because it keeps the conversation on hierarchy, order and navigation while those are still cheap to change.
It is far easier to move a section in a grey wireframe than in a finished screen that everyone has grown attached to. It also separates two kinds of feedback that otherwise arrive tangled together: whether the structure is right, and whether the styling is to taste. Both matter, but resolving them at the same time tends to mean neither gets resolved properly.
Once the structure holds up, the visual design has something to serve. Typography, spacing, colour and motion then do a specific job: making the hierarchy visible, showing what is clickable, confirming that something happened.
Consistency is a system, not discipline
On a project of any size, consistency stops being achievable through care alone. The twentieth screen drifts from the first because someone needed a slightly different button and made one.
So we build a component library rather than a set of pages. Buttons, form fields, cards, spacing scale, type scale, states. New screens are assembled from parts that already have agreed behaviour, which makes them faster to design and faster to build. Where we also write the code, that library lives in Storybook alongside the implementation, so design and code do not drift apart over time.
Testing beats arguing
The cheapest way to end a disagreement about an interface is to watch five people try to use it.
We prototype and test before the build, with participants given a real task rather than a tour. What we are looking for is hesitation: the pause before clicking, the scroll back up, the wrong turn taken confidently. Those moments show the mismatch between what the design assumes and what the person expects.
After launch the same principle applies with different instruments. Analytics and session recordings show the drop-off points, and each one is a hypothesis worth testing. Interfaces do not get good in one pass. They get good because someone keeps looking at where they fail and is willing to change them.
What you get
User paths and screen inventory
The routes people take through the product, what they need at each step and where they currently give up. This is what turns a page list into a design brief.
Wireframes and information architecture
Structure, navigation and content hierarchy settled before anyone picks colours, because these are the decisions that are expensive to change later.
Interface design
Screens designed in Figma for the real breakpoints, including the empty, loading and error states that get skipped in a pretty mockup.
A component library
A reusable set of buttons, forms, cards and layout rules so the twentieth screen looks like the first and does not need designing from scratch.
Accessibility built in
Readable contrast, keyboard navigation, focus states and sensible heading structure treated as part of the design rather than a compliance pass afterwards.
UX audit of what you already have
A prioritised list of the specific friction points in an existing site or app, with the cost and likely payoff of each fix noted.
How we work
- 01
Understand the task, not just the page
We start from what someone is trying to accomplish and what they know when they arrive. Interviews, existing analytics and support tickets are all useful evidence here.
- 02
Map the path and find the drop-off
We lay out the full route to the goal and mark the steps where people stall: an unexplained form field, a decision made too early, a dead end with no way back.
- 03
Wireframe the structure
Low-fidelity layouts to settle hierarchy and navigation while changes are still cheap. It is much easier to argue about a wireframe than a finished screen.
- 04
Design the interface and its states
Visual design applied to the agreed structure, covering the awkward states as well as the ideal one, at the screen sizes that actually appear in your analytics.
- 05
Test, hand over, adjust
We put the design in front of people with a task to complete, fix what trips them up, and hand over files and components developers can build from without guessing.
Tools and technology
Where a solid open-source tool exists, we choose it over a closed one. No lock-in to a single vendor, and costs you can actually predict.
- Penpot
- Storybook
- React
- Next.js
- Tailwind CSS
- shadcn/ui
- Radix UI
- PostHog
- Lighthouse
- Figma
- FigJam
- axe DevTools
Frequently asked questions
Related work
More services in this category
Websites and Web Applications
A website earns its place by making it obvious what you do and easy to act on it. We build sites that load fast, read clearly and hold up as your business changes.
Branding and Visual Identity
Branding is not just a logo. It is the set of decisions that makes your company recognisable in a feed, on an invoice and on a phone screen, without anyone having to read the name.
Optimizing an Existing Website
You do not always have to start over. We look at the site you already have, find what is actually holding it back, and tell you which fixes are worth the money.
Read testimonials from companies that trusted us
Delivered well ahead of the deadline.
ZanReal's individual approach is impressive.
Knowledge and business intuition make them a valuable partner.
Quick solutions that reduced costs by 99%.
Latest
Technical guides, security insights, and what we've learned building with AI.
Where do your users hesitate, stall or give up?
Message usTell us which screen or step people abandon most often, and we will suggest whether a UX audit or a redesign of that path is the right first move.
Can't keep up with changes in AI world?
Let us do the heavy lifting. Every week we distill the most important AI developments into a focused 5-minute briefing — so you stay ahead without the noise.
Find out more