UI/UX Design Services and Branding

Yes. Brand identity work covers logo design, colour systems, typography, and written brand guidelines. For new products we usually prefer to run branding and product design together, because doing them separately tends to produce a brand that looks correct in a presentation and awkward once it has to survive a dense interface. A palette chosen for a logo often fails accessibility contrast requirements when applied to body text or disabled states, and a display typeface chosen for a wordmark is frequently unusable at fourteen pixels. Designing both at once means the identity is tested against the interface it actually has to live in. Where you already have a brand you are happy with, we work within it and will flag specific places where it creates usability problems rather than quietly changing it.

All design work is delivered in Figma, and you receive the source files with full edit access rather than view-only links, plus an exported asset package and written component specifications for your developers. Full ownership of the source files is deliberate and worth checking with any agency you engage. Design held in an account you cannot access is a dependency that becomes obvious at exactly the wrong moment, usually when you want to make a small change and the relationship has ended. The written specification matters as much as the file: a Figma frame shows what a component looks like in the states someone remembered to draw, while a specification states behaviour for the states nobody drew, such as empty, loading, error, and overflow. Those are where implementations usually diverge from the design.

Yes, and it is the majority of what we do. We structure handoff around the stack being used, because what a team needs differs: a React team with an established component library wants designs expressed in terms of those components, while a team starting fresh needs the underlying tokens and spacing scale defined. We can attend sprint planning and design review to support implementation, which catches divergence early when it is cheap. The failure mode we design against is the handoff that ends at delivery. Questions always arise during build, usually about states that were never drawn, and if there is no route back to the designer the developer makes a reasonable guess and the product drifts. Being available for those questions is worth more than a more polished initial file.

We work within your existing system, and would generally rather extend one than replace it. We also run design system audits where you want an independent view of where it has become inconsistent or incomplete before building more on top. Audits typically surface the same pattern: the system was defined thoroughly for the screens that existed at the time, then diverged as new work introduced one-off variants under deadline. The result is six subtly different button styles and a spacing scale that is honoured about half the time. That is normal rather than a sign of poor work, and the fix is usually consolidation plus a written rule for when a new variant is justified, not a rebuild. Rebuilding a design system that mostly works is expensive and rarely produces a proportionate improvement.

Accessibility is part of the design process rather than a checklist applied at the end, and we design to WCAG 2.1 AA by default. In practice that covers colour contrast ratios, touch target sizing, visible focus states, readable typography, and interfaces that work with a keyboard alone. Treating it as a final audit is what makes accessibility expensive, because the problems it finds are usually structural: a palette whose brand colour fails contrast on white, a layout that depends on colour alone to convey state, or a custom control with no keyboard equivalent. Each of those is cheap to avoid during design and costly to retrofit afterwards. It is also worth saying that AA compliance is a floor rather than a guarantee of a good experience for disabled users, and testing with real assistive technology finds things no checklist catches.