Research and discovery
Talking to the people who use the thing. Enough to know which problem is real, not enough to delay the build by a quarter.
Experience Design
UI/UX Design
Research, interface design and design systems, shipped as working components rather than as a slide deck. Design that stops at a handover file is design that gets rebuilt by a developer under deadline.
UI/UX Design, in practice
Design that stops at a handover file gets rebuilt by a developer under deadline, and what ships is neither what was designed nor what was briefed. That gap is the single most common reason a redesign fails to change anything.
So our UI/UX design work in Delhi ends in working components rather than in screens. The design system is code your team can use, the states nobody enjoys drawing are drawn (empty, loading, error, too much text, not enough), and accessibility is decided while it is still cheap rather than audited after launch.
It usually starts with a smaller question than a full redesign. Which one flow is losing people, and what does the data say about where. If a specific step is the problem, fixing that step beats redrawing the whole product, and it is a great deal easier to prove it worked.
What we build
Interface design
Screens designed against real content and real edge cases, not against three perfect example records.
Design systems
Components built in code, so the design is the thing that ships rather than a reference the build drifts away from.
Conversion work
Finding where people leave a flow and fixing that specifically, instead of redesigning the page around it.
WCAG accessibility auditing
Auditing against WCAG 2.2 AA with a written report of what fails, why it matters, and what to change.
Usability testing
Watching real people try to complete a task. Consistently the cheapest way to find out that something obvious is not.
Responsive and mobile design
Designed at the small size first, because that is where most people will see it and where the compromises show.
Content and interface writing
The words in buttons, errors and empty states. Usually the highest-impact and least-considered part of an interface.
How we approach it
What is different about how this team does the work, rather than what every agency says about it.
-
We design with real content
Real product names, real error states, real long titles. A design that only works with the sample data breaks on the first day of use.
-
We ship components, not files
The design system is built in code. Handing a developer a picture and hoping is how design and build drift apart within a month.
-
Accessibility is part of the work
Contrast, focus order, keyboard paths and labels are designed in. Auditing at the end finds problems that are structural and expensive by then.
-
We change one thing at a time
On anything that converts, a full redesign tells you nothing about what worked. Sequenced changes tell you what to keep.
Built with
Chosen for what the project needs, not for what is new. If you already have a stack, we work in it.
- React.js
- Next.js
- Tailwind CSS
- TypeScript
- HTML5
- CSS3
Questions we get asked
Do we need research, or can you just design it?
We can just design it, and sometimes that is the right call. If the problem is well understood and the stakes are low, research adds cost without adding certainty. When you are about to spend a large budget on something nobody has tested with a real user, a small amount of research is the cheapest insurance available. We will tell you which situation you are in rather than selling a discovery phase by default.
What does an accessibility audit actually give us?
A written report of what fails WCAG 2.2 AA, ordered by how much it matters, with the specific change needed for each item. Not a score. Most sites we look at have a small number of structural issues, such as keyboard traps or unlabelled controls, that block people entirely, plus a long tail of contrast problems that are quick to fix. We tell you which is which, so the budget goes where it changes something.
Will the design survive contact with our developers?
That is exactly what the components are for. When the design system is built in code, your developers use the real thing rather than rebuilding it from a picture. Where you have an in-house team we hand over the components and work alongside them. Design that lives only in a design file drifts from the product within weeks, and nobody notices until it looks inconsistent.
Can you redesign just part of our product?
Yes, and it is usually wiser. A staged redesign lets you see whether each change did what it was supposed to, and it does not ask your users to relearn everything at once. Full redesigns are worth it when the underlying structure is the problem. We will look at what you have and tell you which of the two you are dealing with.
Something in your product not working?
Tell us where people get stuck. We will tell you whether it is a design problem or something else.