Design that works
before it looks good.

Every logo system we deliver is built in vector format and tested across multiple scale contexts before handoff. We define a primary mark, a condensed variant for small screens, and a monochrome version for single-colour applications. The favicon version is a specific artefact - not just a scaled-down logo, but a pixel-optimised mark that reads clearly at 16×16px.

The Brand Guide covers: logo usage rules, colour tokens with HEX/RGB/CMYK values, typography scale, spacing logic, photography style, and do/don't examples. We deliver it as a PDF for reference and as an editable source file (Figma or InDesign) so your internal team can update it without needing to brief us on every change.

We run a brief discovery session - remote or in-person - where we extract three to five key words that describe how you want to make people feel. From those words we build a reference board using existing visual references (not stock art) that map to that emotional register. You approve the direction before a single original asset is created. This prevents wasted rounds on designs that were never going in the right direction.

Yes. Motion branding is an optional deliverable - a short animation (typically 1-3 seconds) of the logo for use as an app loader, social media intro, or video end-card. We deliver it as a Lottie JSON file (scalable, small file size, works natively in iOS, Android, and web) and as an MP4 for social platforms.

This is one of the most technically demanding briefs we take on. We start with a brand equity audit - identifying which elements (colour, shape, typeface) carry the most recognition value with your existing audience. The refresh then preserves those anchor elements while modernising everything else. You don't lose the brand; you evolve it.

We look at task completion rate, time-on-task, error rate, and drop-off points in key flows (onboarding, checkout, primary action). On the qualitative side we look at System Usability Scale (SUS) scores from user sessions and heatmap data if available. These give us a baseline before we recommend any changes - so improvements can be measured against actual data, not opinion.

Yes - user research is not optional on UX projects. We typically run five to eight moderated user interviews at the start of a project, which is sufficient to surface the majority of usability patterns. For products that already have users, we also conduct unmoderated task-based sessions using screen recording tools. You're involved in defining the participant profiles and reviewing the findings before any design work begins.

Multi-role platforms are a speciality. We map each role as a separate journey first, then identify the touchpoints where roles intersect (e.g., an admin approving an action triggered by a customer). This intersection mapping often reveals the most critical design problems - roles that share a flow but have different goals and mental models require careful information architecture to serve both without confusion.

Low-fidelity prototypes test the logic of a flow without the distraction of visual polish. When users interact with a wireframe, their feedback is purely about structure and sequence - not colour or typography - which means you get clean signal on whether the product makes sense. Catching a structural problem at wireframe stage costs a fraction of what it costs to rebuild after high-fidelity design or development has started.

We establish a lightweight feedback loop: analytics review every four to six weeks, a short usability session with three to five users each quarter, and a prioritised backlog of UX improvements. This isn't a retainer model - it's a defined process you can run with or without us. We document it in a Continuous Iteration Framework that your team can operate independently.

Yes. We build from atoms (buttons, inputs, labels) up to molecules (form fields, card headers) and then to organisms (full card components, nav bars). This means a change at the atom level - say, updating the primary button colour - propagates automatically through every component that uses it. The result is a UI Kit that scales without breaking.

Yes on both. The Figma file uses Auto Layout throughout, which means components resize predictably. Variables are set up for colour and typography tokens, so a developer can read exact CSS values directly from Figma's inspect panel. We also include a separate handoff document specifying spacing, grid, and interaction behaviour for every component that has a non-obvious state.

Accessibility is built in from the start, not retrofitted. We check colour contrast ratios against WCAG AA (4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text) as we design. We annotate focus order and keyboard navigation paths in the handoff file. We also flag any components that require ARIA attributes - these are documented for the development team so accessibility doesn't get lost in implementation.

Yes. Custom icon sets are delivered as SVG with consistent stroke weight, optical balance adjustments for small sizes, and both outlined and filled variants. Illustrations follow the same process as brand identity - mood board first, style approval, then production. All source files are included in the deliverable.

Best practices govern structure and behaviour - where to place navigation, how to handle form errors, what a primary CTA should look like. Visual style governs everything else. We apply conventions where breaking them costs users time (e.g., navigation placement) and break conventions where following them makes a product forgettable (e.g., colour, typography, layout rhythm). The output is a product that users can navigate immediately but remember distinctly.

We start with a Discovery Workshop - a structured two-to-three hour session where we interrogate the concept from a user and technical perspective. We document assumptions, identify the riskiest ones, and define the smallest version of the product that would prove or disprove those assumptions. You leave with a clear problem statement, a user hypothesis, and a scope for phase one. No concept is too rough - rough is actually preferable, because there's less to unlearn.

We use a modified MoSCoW framework (Must Have / Should Have / Could Have / Won't Have) combined with a user value vs. build effort matrix. Every proposed feature is assessed against two questions: does this directly address the primary user problem, and can we test the core hypothesis without it? Features that fail the first question are deferred. Features that pass the second are deferred too - the MVP should be minimal, not comprehensive.

Yes. The roadmap is structured in phases with defined inputs, outputs, and dependencies for each. We specify which design deliverables are required before each development phase starts, which third-party integrations need to be scoped early, and which decisions can be deferred. It's written to be read by both technical and non-technical stakeholders - no jargon without explanation.

Competitor analysis goes beyond feature lists. We conduct a UX audit of the top three to five competitors - documenting their information architecture, onboarding flow, primary CTA placement, and any identified friction points. This gives us a map of what the market expects (table stakes) and where there's differentiation opportunity. Market research informs positioning; the UX audit informs design decisions.

The Discovery Session is a structured conversation - not a sales call. We ask about the problem, the user, the constraints, and what you've already tried. You should expect to leave with a clearer articulation of your own problem than when you arrived. If there's alignment on scope and approach, we produce a fixed-price proposal within 48 hours. If there isn't, you've still got a clearer brief at zero cost.