UX/UI design services
Interface design that ships to production, not to a client presentation. We design and build together, which means nothing gets lost between the Figma file and the deployed component. Design systems, SaaS dashboards, and marketing interfaces built by a team that understands how every pixel gets implemented.
Every $1 invested in UX returns an estimated $100, approximately a 9,900% ROI (Forrester Research). A well-executed user interface can increase conversion rates by up to 200%; improved UX design on top of that can push the figure to 400% (UXCam, 2025). The financial case for design is not subtle. The operational challenge is delivering it without the expensive translation layer between what a designer drew and what an engineer built.
The problem with most design engagements#
When design and development are separate conversations#
The standard agency model separates design and development into distinct phases and often distinct teams. A design agency delivers Figma files. A development agency receives them. That gap is where product quality degrades.
Designers make decisions in Figma that look clean and correct but carry hidden implementation costs: components that don't account for variable-length text, interactions that require custom animation libraries, layouts that break at uncommon viewport widths. When the designer isn't available during development, the engineer improvises. The product that ships is a lower-fidelity version of what was designed.
What gets lost in handoff#
State handling disappears first: empty states, loading states, error states. Then responsive behavior below the designed breakpoints. Then the interaction details that were implicit in the prototype but never documented. Then the reasoning behind spacing and typographic decisions. When a design system isn't part of the deliverable, individual screens stop composing correctly the moment a developer builds a new one independently.
Why 91% of developers say the handoff process could be improved#
Ninety-one percent of developers and 92% of designers report that the design-to-development handoff process could be improved (CollabSoft Designer Survey, 2025). The most common causes: unclear specifications, incomplete documentation of interactive states, and design files not built with engineering constraints in mind. Poor design communication causes up to 30% of development delays (GeekyAnts, 2025).
The design-development gap is a structural problem, not a personality one. The fix is having implementation knowledge in the room from day one.
What we actually deliver#
Product interfaces#
Application interfaces for web and mobile products, covering the full design surface of a working digital product. Information architecture, navigation patterns, component design, interaction models, and every state a user might encounter: onboarding, empty states, error states, loading, success, edge cases.
We design for the product that will actually be built. That means working within what the engineering timeline can support, being explicit about what ships in the current release versus later, and building components the development team can extend without rewriting them.
SaaS dashboards and admin UX#
Data-dense interfaces need different thinking than marketing pages. A SaaS dashboard has to surface a lot of information in a compact space and still work for a power user who's been in it for three hours. We design dashboards around real data models, not placeholder charts, which means the layouts hold up when your data varies in density and scale.
Admin interfaces get the same attention: permission hierarchies, bulk actions, filterable tables, and configuration UX an operator can navigate without documentation.
Landing pages and marketing design#
Conversion-optimized marketing pages with a clear information hierarchy and a single primary CTA. We work from the copy outward: design serves the message. For teams running growth experiments, we leave the structure clean enough to test against without a full redesign.
Design systems#
A reusable component library, documented design tokens, and a Figma structure that stays in sync with production code. Every subsequent design and engineering decision is faster once a system exists. See the section below for detail.
How we work: design that ships#
Discovery and user research#
We start with the audience and the use case. Who uses this product, what are they trying to accomplish, where do they get stuck? For new products, this means stakeholder interviews and competitive interface analysis. For existing products, it means reviewing analytics, support tickets, and user feedback.
Discovery ends with a clear brief: the primary user jobs-to-be-done, the information hierarchy the interface needs to support, and the constraints (technical, timeline, brand) that frame every design decision downstream.
Wireframes and information architecture#
We establish layout logic at the wireframe stage, before visual design begins. Navigation structure, page hierarchy, data grouping: all of this gets settled when changing it costs hours, not days.
We review wireframes with the client and the engineering lead together. Routing implications, data model constraints, and expensive interactions surface here, not during a development sprint.
High-fidelity design in Figma#
Every screen is built from a shared component library. The design scales to new screens without breaking consistency, and the handoff file is navigable by engineers without a walkthrough.
Color, typography, spacing, and icon systems are defined as design tokens before individual screens are created. This keeps visual decisions traceable and makes generating a design system at the end of the engagement straightforward.
Prototype and feedback cycles#
We build interactive prototypes in Figma to validate flows before development starts. Prototypes cover the primary user journeys, key error states, and any interaction that carries design risk.
Feedback sessions have a structure: specific questions, specific screens, specific outcomes we need from the review. Open-ended "does this look good" sessions get replaced by task-based walkthroughs.
Handoff or full implementation#
If you need design files handed off to your own team, we deliver a fully annotated Figma file with interactive states, spacing documentation, and a component library, plus a walkthrough session and availability during the first development sprint.
If you want design and development in one engagement, we move directly from validated designs to our own implementation. The designer and the engineer have the same understanding of the product because they're on the same team, in some cases the same person. No translation layer. That's what eliminates the 30% of development delays caused by unclear design requirements.
Design systems: the compounding asset#
What a design system is and what it gives you#
A design system is a documented library of components, patterns, and design decisions that both design and engineering work from. It is the single source of truth for what a button looks like, how a form behaves, what spacing units mean, and how the color palette extends.
The first component library takes time to build. After that, every screen, feature, and product update is faster because the decisions are already made and the components already exist. Teams with mature design systems ship new work in a fraction of the time compared to those who rebuild from scratch each sprint. The system pays for itself around the fourth or fifth screen.
Tokens, components, and documentation#
A production-ready design system includes:
- Design tokens: named values for color, typography, spacing, radius, shadow, and motion. These live in Figma as variables and in code as CSS custom properties or a theme object.
- Base components: buttons, inputs, badges, icons, tooltips. Each with all variants and states documented.
- Composite components: form groups, data tables, navigation patterns, modal dialogs, notification systems.
- Pattern documentation: when to use which component, how to handle edge cases, accessibility notes.
How we build for Tailwind and component libraries#
Our design systems pair with Tailwind CSS and React component libraries. Token values map directly to Tailwind config. Components are designed with the same class system the engineers use, so there's no gap between the spacing in Figma and the spacing in production.
For teams with an existing component library (shadcn/ui, Radix, MUI), we work within those constraints and extend only where necessary.
When design and development are the same team#
Why the no-handoff model produces better outcomes#
When the people doing the design have shipped production software, the feedback loop collapses from weeks to hours. A designer who understands React component architecture makes different decisions than one who doesn't. Expensive interactions get simplified at the design stage. Components that look visually similar but are architecturally different get unified before a line of code is written.
Our CTO started his career in UX/UI design, then moved into full-stack engineering, enterprise systems, and consumer product development. He has made the call to simplify an interaction because he knew what it would cost to implement it. That practical instinct doesn't show up in a Figma file delivered by someone who won't be in the codebase.
How this connects to web and SaaS development#
Design and development are offered as separate services because not every client needs both. Some already have a design system; some already have engineers. When a project needs both, running them together is materially better for the outcome. The web and SaaS development page describes how the full-stack build works alongside this design process.
The full-stack product lifecycle we've shipped#
We have shipped full product cycles: requirements through design through engineering through App Store or production deployment. Designing an interface with direct knowledge of how it will be implemented, including the component hierarchy, the state management approach, and the API contract, produces work that is tighter and more maintainable than anything designed in isolation.
See the technologies page for the full picture of what we build on and our projects for a concrete example of a product we designed and shipped from concept to production.
FAQ#
What is included in UX/UI design services?
A full engagement typically includes discovery and user research, information architecture and wireframing, high-fidelity visual design in Figma, an interactive prototype, and either a handoff file or direct implementation. Scope varies: some clients need the full process; others have a validated product and only need visual design. We scope each engagement to what the project actually requires.
How much does professional UX/UI design cost?
Engagements range from $8,000 for a focused marketing site to $60,000+ for a full product design with a design system. Cost depends on scope, number of screens, complexity of interactive states, and whether a design system is included. We provide a fixed-scope quote after a discovery conversation.
What tools do your designers use?
Figma for everything: wireframes, high-fidelity design, prototypes, component libraries, and handoff documentation. For design-to-code workflows we use Figma's developer mode and, where applicable, connect directly to our Tailwind-based component systems. We do not use tools that produce generated code.
What is a design system and do I need one?
A design system is a shared library of components, tokens, and documented patterns that both designers and engineers work from. You probably need one if you're building a product with more than 15-20 screens, more than one person on the design or codebase, or any expectation of adding screens over time. Without one, design drift and implementation inconsistency are near-inevitable at scale.
How long does a UX/UI design project take?
A focused marketing site or landing page runs 1-3 weeks. A product interface project runs 4-8 weeks. A full product design with design system and prototyping can run 8-12 weeks. Timeline is driven by scope, number of feedback cycles, and how quickly stakeholders can turn around reviews.
We already have a design. Can you implement it in code?
Yes. We review the files for engineering feasibility first, flag anything that will cause problems during the build (unclear states, missing mobile breakpoints, component gaps), then build directly from them. The review is part of the engagement, not a separate charge.
Have a project in mind? Contact our team or request a technical audit if you're starting with an existing product that needs a design review.
