Good UX is not about how a site looks. It is about whether a visitor can work out what you do, whether it applies to them, and what to do next — without thinking about it.
These are the failures that show up repeatedly in session recordings.
Menu labels that make sense internally and none at all to a customer. Visitors cannot map what they need onto what they see, so they use search or leave.
Pages that end without telling anyone what to do. The visitor has to decide for themselves what they want from you, which most will not bother doing.
Layouts that technically respond but ignore how people hold a phone — tap targets too small, key actions below three screens of scroll, forms that fight the keyboard.
Choices made on taste and internal politics rather than on what users do, then defended long after the data disagrees.
We start by finding out what people actually do — analytics for where they drop, session replay for what they saw, and short user tests for why they hesitated. Opinions about design get much shorter once there is a recording of someone failing to find the pricing.
Then we structure the site around tasks rather than departments, design interfaces where the next step is always obvious, and validate before build. Fixing an information architecture in a wireframe costs a fraction of fixing it after development.
Analytics, session replay and user testing rather than assumption
Structure and labels drawn from what visitors are trying to do
Every page type given a defined, obvious next step
Designed for thumbs and real devices, not resized desktop
Wireframes tested while changes are still cheap
Each stage reduces the cost of being wrong at the next one. Skipping straight to visual design is why redesigns so often fail to improve anything.
What users actually do and where they give up, from data not opinion
Structure and navigation organised around tasks, not org charts
Interfaces that make the next step obvious at every point
Tested with real users and real data before it ships
Each stage reduces the cost of being wrong at the next one. Skipping straight to visual design is why redesigns so often fail to improve anything.
Analytics review, session replay, heatmaps and user interviews
Sitemap and content structure organised around user tasks
Each audience's path from arrival to conversion, with drop-off points
Calls to action, trust signals and objection handling placed deliberately
Touch targets, thumb reach, scroll depth and keyboard behaviour
Contrast, keyboard navigation, semantics and screen reader behaviour
Real people attempting real tasks, recorded and analysed
Menu structure and labelling drawn from customer language
Layout and hierarchy agreed before any visual design begins
Field reduction, validation, error states and multi-step flows
Category browsing, filtering, product pages, cart and checkout
Reusable components so future pages stay consistent
Removing friction lifts results without more spend.
People who can find answers stop emailing to ask for them.
Where most traffic is and most frustration happens.
Fixing structure in a wireframe costs a fraction of fixing it in code.
Research replaces opinion as the basis for decisions.
Clear structure and semantics help everyone, including assistive tech.
Analytics, session replay, heatmaps and short user tests to find real failures.
What each audience comes to do, ranked by commercial value.
Sitemap, navigation and labelling restructured around those tasks.
Layout and hierarchy designed and reviewed before visuals.
Tested with real users while changes are still inexpensive.
Visual design and a component system developers can build from.
Every engagement is scoped individually. These ranges give you a realistic idea of investment before you speak to us.
Project slots are ready for real client work — screenshots, brand names and outcomes drop straight into these cards.
Modern WooCommerce store for computer parts, laptops, components and electronics, built for easy product discovery and seamless online shopping.
Modern healthcare website redesign with improved UX, professional branding and appointment-focused navigation.
Redesigned a modern healthcare website with improved UX, professional branding, and clearer appointment-focused user journeys.
UX design shapes the structure and interface, usually before or during a build. CRO tests changes against live traffic to prove what works. UX gets you a sound starting point; CRO improves it continuously. They overlap heavily and work best together.
Usually yes, because knowing your customers is not the same as watching them use your website. Session recordings routinely surprise people who were certain their navigation was obvious.
Fewer than most expect. Five to eight participants per audience typically surfaces the majority of significant usability problems. It is qualitative work — you are looking for failures, not statistical significance.
Often, yes. Navigation labelling, form design, calls to action and mobile fixes can be applied to an existing site. The UX Review tells you whether targeted fixes will do or whether the structure itself is the problem.
Indirectly but genuinely. Clear information architecture and internal linking help crawlers as well as people, and better engagement supports rankings. It is not a substitute for technical SEO.
Either. The UX Design tier ends at validated wireframes and handoff documentation; the combined tier takes it through to full visual design and a component system.
These pair naturally with this service — most clients combine two or three.
It is usually uncomfortable and always instructive. A UX review shows you where real visitors hesitate, backtrack and give up.
No obligation. If we are not the right fit for your goals, we will say so.
