Product & Hardware Engineering
Good design is not decoration; it is the difference between software people tolerate and software they choose. We design digital products the way we engineer them: grounded in evidence, tested with real users, and specified precisely enough to build without guesswork. And because we are also the people who write production code, our designs survive contact with engineering.
Before pixels, evidence. We interview users, map the jobs they are hiring your product to do, audit where the current experience loses them, and turn what we learn into decisions: what to build, what to fix first, what to stop building. Research does not need to take months; a week of structured interviews usually changes the roadmap more than a quarter of opinions.
Most products fail users at the structural level: things are not where anyone expects them to be. We design the skeleton first, navigation, hierarchy, naming and the flows that matter commercially, sign-up, checkout, onboarding, the daily task loop, and validate the structure with card sorts and first-click tests before any visual design begins.
Low-fidelity wireframes to settle layout and priority, then high-fidelity UI in Figma: type scale, colour, spacing, iconography, motion and states. Not just the happy path, but the empty states, loading states, error states and edge cases where real products live. Every screen ships with the logic annotated, so what the developer builds is what the designer meant.
A design system turns design from artwork into infrastructure: tokens for colour, type and spacing, a component library in Figma mirrored one-to-one in code, and documentation for both audiences. New screens compose in hours instead of days, and the product stops drifting into inconsistency every sprint.
Opinions are cheap and confident, so we test instead. Clickable prototypes go in front of real users in moderated sessions; we watch where they hesitate, where they fail, and what they say unprompted. Five users typically expose the big problems, and a finding from testing settles design debates that meetings cannot.
We design to WCAG 2.2 AA from the first draft: contrast that passes measurement rather than squinting, touch targets sized for thumbs, focus states that are visible, forms that announce their errors, and flows that work with a keyboard and a screen reader. Accessible design is better design for everyone, and retrofitting it costs multiples of doing it now.
The classic failure is the gap between the design file and what ships. We close it two ways. When your engineers build, they get an organised Figma file, tokens, annotations and a designer who reviews the build. When we build, the gap does not exist: the same team carries the design into React, Flutter or whatever the product ships in.
Common questions
Both, and redesigns are the more common engagement. We start with a UX audit of the current product, analytics, support tickets and a heuristic review, so the redesign is aimed at measured problems rather than taste. Where possible we recommend staged improvement over a big-bang relaunch, because users punish sudden unfamiliarity even when the new design is objectively better.
With the numbers the design was meant to move, agreed before the work starts: task completion rate and time in usability tests, activation and conversion in the funnel, support ticket volume on the flows we touched, and adoption of the redesigned feature. Design that cannot state its target metric is decoration, and we do not sell decoration.
Figma for design, components and prototyping, since it is where the industry has settled, with FigJam for workshops and flows. Design tokens export to code, and we are comfortable plugging into whatever your engineers use, Storybook, Tailwind, Material, or a system of your own.
Yes. Product and marketing site share a design language or the brand feels broken at the doorstep, so we design landing pages, docs sites and dashboards to the same system. Full brand identity from scratch, logo and naming, is not our core craft; we partner with brand specialists when that is what you need and design everything digital around the result.
Design runs one step ahead of engineering in the same cadence: while engineers build this sprint's screens, design is testing next sprint's. Designers review pull requests for visual fidelity, engineers flag feasibility early, and the design system keeps both sides honest. It is the practical advantage of hiring design and engineering from one team.
Also from us
Contact
A few lines is enough. We will come back with an honest view of whether we are the right people for it.
