UX/UI design services: where the user journey breaks
Most often, the user journey breaks not at the entrance, but at the third or fourth step: the person has already started the scenario, but loses context and leaves.
The reason is usually one — the interface was designed screen by screen, rather than around an end-to-end route to the target action. That is why UX research of the target audience begins not with visual concepts, but with an analysis of real tasks.
The site's navigation structure breaks on dead-end branches: a page without a next step, a filter that leaves an empty list, breadcrumbs leading nowhere. The user does not understand where they are or where to go, and returns to search — not to us.
Long forms finish off the scenario: required fields that are not needed for the request, a phone mask that erases what was entered, a validation error that appears only after submission. Every extra field is a step at which the share of users reaching the target action drops.
A separate category is inconsistent states: a button looks active but does not work, a hint promises one thing while the system does another, after an error the form loses the entered data.
The user decides the site is broken and leaves silently — in reports this is "did not reach", with no reason.
We find such places using a journey map and analysis of abandoned scenarios: analytics and session recordings show at which step people stop and what exactly gets in the way. Next comes a prototype of navigation and forms, testing with users, and only then the visual layer.
The target action becomes measurable: the share of those who reached it, scenario depth, and the share of returns to the previous step.
What changes in the product after interface rework
The effect of interface rework is measured not in mockups, but in how people behave in the product.
Before starting, we record baseline values: the share of users reaching the target action, the average number of steps in a scenario, the time to assemble a new screen, and the number of revisions after handing mockups to development. Then every change is checked against this baseline, not against personal preferences.
- Conversion design of the homepage: the first screen answers the question "what can be done here" before scrolling — the share of visitors who leave without taking action drops, and transitions to target sections grow.
- Service page design: the selection scenario is built around the client's real questions, not the company's structure — time to the first meaningful contact is reduced several times over.
- Reducing scenario steps: we remove fields that can be obtained from the profile or clarified later; the path to the request is two or three steps shorter, and drop-off on intermediate forms is noticeably lower.
- Unified component library: states of buttons, fields, tables, and modal windows are described once — a new screen is assembled from ready-made blocks in hours instead of days, and discrepancies between sections disappear.
- Handing mockups to development: element behavior, empty states, errors, and loading are described in the specification — the number of revisions after layout decreases, and releases do not shift.
- Verifiability: every interface change is tied to a metric, so it is clear what worked and what to roll back.
All changes live in a single component library in Figma, synchronized with the code: design and layout do not diverge on the next product update. Describe your task — we will come back with an estimate and a plan for interface rework.
UX/UI design services: work formats and their limitations
The choice of format is determined not by the number of screens, but by whether there are fixed scenarios and a reusable component base.
That is why we start with an interface audit: we look at where design states diverge from implementation, which scenario branches are not covered, and where the same element exists in four variants with different spacing and behavior on narrow screens.
Based on the result, it becomes clear whether targeted screen rework, design from scratch, or a system that will hold agreements further is needed.
| Option | When it fits | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Targeted screen rework | The product works, scenarios are stable, a specific area is painful | Does not remove discrepancies between sections: edits have to be repeated on every similar screen |
| Design from scratch | A new product or a change of model, the old site information architecture is not reused | Takes longer to first value, requires approved scenarios and roles before mockups start |
| Web application design system | Several teams or sections, the interface changes constantly | Requires a system owner and an update process, otherwise the library diverges from the code within a couple of iterations |
| Ongoing support | Releases happen regularly, there is a stream of interface tasks | Requires transparent prioritization, otherwise small edits crowd out rework of key scenarios |
Formats are combined: targeted rework handles urgent needs, while a design system removes the reason the same edits return every quarter.
It is important to discuss limitations before starting — they determine what we will not do within the chosen mode, and what will keep the scope of work from growing.
Work stages: scenario audit, scheme, assembly, testing
The order of stages is structured so that decisions are made on the cheapest media: editing a journey diagram takes minutes, editing a finished mockup takes days, and redoing a finished interface takes weeks.
That is why we fix the logic of transitions and page structure before drawing the visuals, and test contentious points with people, not on a call.
-
Scenario and behavior audit. We analyze analytics, session recordings, and support requests: at which steps users abandon the cart or form, where they return, and which screens they do not see at all. The output is a list of loss points and hypotheses about what causes them.
-
User journey schemes. We describe each scenario with steps, branches, error states, and exit points. We align with you and development before design — logic discrepancies surface here, not in layout.
-
Wireframe page prototypes. We lay out blocks and priorities without graphics: it is clear what goes on the first screen and what goes below. Arguing about structure on gray blocks is cheaper than arguing about colors.
-
Clickable prototype. We connect screens with transitions, add empty states, errors, and loading — the journey can be walked through end to end. We assemble it in Figma so edits do not require redrawing.
-
Testing scenarios with users. Five to seven people from your audience solve tasks; we note where they stumble and what they interpret differently. We fix before mockup assembly, while it does not cost rework.
-
Assembling mockups and the library. We draw states — hover, error, disabled — adaptive grids, and reusable components with shared style variables.
-
Handoff and post-release verification. We deliver mockups with descriptions of block behavior, accompany layout until release, and compare the result with the prototype.
Handoff package: mockups, tokens, regulations
Design ends not with a picture in a mockup, but with a package by which the assembly team builds the interface without clarifying questions for the designer.
We hand over everything in source files and in the form in which the artifacts live on: edits are made within your team or by us — without redrawing from scratch.
- Responsive website design — mockups at agreed breakpoint widths, with explicit grid and wrapping behavior, not a stretched desktop version.
- Component library — buttons, fields, tables, filters, modal windows, notifications; each component has fixed sizes, spacing, and all states.
- Design tokens — colors, typography, spacing, radii, and shadows are moved into variables: changing the brand accent is done in one place, not by going through a hundred screens.
- Web application UI kit — a showcase of assembled blocks with examples of real screens, which helps a new developer or contractor get into the project in hours.
- State and error rules — empty screens, loading, validation failure, lack of permissions, connection loss: these branches are designed in advance, not drawn in a rush at release.
- Mockup → code mapping — component and layer names match names in the markup, so divergence between design and layout is caught during verification.
- Interface update regulations — the procedure for adding and changing components, who approves an edit, how the version is fixed, and what happens to already released screens.
Such a package removes the main cause of interface sprawl: new pages are assembled from ready-made blocks, rather than designed anew for each screen.
Case study: rebuilding the order scenario in the customer account
What was there
In the customer account of a service company, the order checkout scenario took seven screens, and each next one pulled data from the previous one.
If the user went back a step, refreshed the page, or opened checkout from a phone, what was entered was lost, and the form silently reset the selection. A separate problem was interface states: with a slow response, the button was not blocked, and the order was submitted twice.
What we changed and what it gave
The scenario was rebuilt into three steps: service and its parameters, contacts and address, confirmation. Progress is saved in the customer account as a draft, so returning to checkout from any device pulls up what has already been filled in.
State prototypes were assembled and run through live scenarios in Figma — before the task went to development.
We added explicit states instead of a "mute" form: loading with blocking of repeated submission, field-by-field validation with a format hint, an empty state of the order list with one clear next action, and partial success — order created, payment failed, with a button to retry payment without recreating the order.
The share of completed actions in the scenario grew from 47% to 71%: the path became shorter, and users stopped hitting unclear screens. Duplicate order submissions disappeared completely, and support requests about checkout became roughly a third less frequent.
How does a design system differ from a UI kit in practice?
A UI kit is a set of drawn components: buttons, fields, cards, modal windows. A design system begins where tokens appear on top of them — named values for color, spacing, typography, and radii — along with rules for their use and a support process.
A kit lives inside a mockup; a system exists in two places at once: in the design file and in the code.
| What we compare | UI kit | Design system |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | drawn components | tokens and components, a single source |
| Changing the brand color | editing each layer manually | a new token value — updated everywhere |
| Connection to code | manual reconciliation, discrepancies accumulate | shared values, change review |
| Evolution | expanded on request | versioned, outdated items are retired |
| Where justified | landing page, short campaign | web application with a long cycle |
The difference shows on the very first change. While there are few screens, a kit saves time: you do not need to draw a button twice.
As soon as the product grows to dozens of screens, manual editing becomes a source of discrepancies — the same spacing appears in three variants, and the "disabled" state is described somewhere but not elsewhere.
In Figma this is clearly visible: variables and styles provide a single source of values, the component library provides reuse, and display modes provide consistent theme states.
Then the process begins: versioning components, marking outdated ones, and reviewing changes together with the development team. Without it, the system degrades back to a kit within a couple of iterations.
For the client's team, this means: the first version takes a little longer to assemble, but each subsequent interface change is an edit of one value, not going through fifty screens.
A design system pays off not at the start, but over the long run, when the product is constantly evolving.
Common doubts before starting interface work
Doubts before starting are usually technical: can the existing interface be improved without redrawing everything; what to do with already drawn mockups; how to make sure the screen structure is clear to the user; who is responsible for discrepancies between mockup and implementation. Below are short answers on how we address each of these points.
Can the existing interface be improved rather than fully redesigned?
Yes, if the navigation and core logic can handle the load. We start with an inventory of screens and components: what is reused, where the hierarchy is broken, and where edits within existing layers are enough.
Improvement of the existing interface goes in iterations, and each one is released separately — the product does not freeze during the work.
We already have drawn mockups — do you work with them?
Yes. We analyze the grid, element states, behavior on narrow screens, error handling, and empty states.
We reuse working layers, draw the missing parts, and bring everything into a single component library — then handoff of mockups to development goes through one source, not through chat messages.
How do you test whether the structure is clear, and who is responsible for discrepancies?
Testing whether the structure is clear happens before drawing: screen scheme, prototype, run-through of typical tasks — you immediately see where the user loses the path.
Discrepancies between mockup and layout are recorded at a joint acceptance: the designer and engineer check states and spacing against one specification, and contentious points are decided by the lead designer.
Let's discuss the task and come back with an estimate and plan
To come back with an estimate for the design project, rather than a range "from and to", we need product context and data on how it is used now.
Send what you already have — some items may be missing, and that does not block the project start: we fill the gaps on a call.
- Product and task description: what the service does, who the target audience is, which scenarios are critical for the business.
- Current screens: access to the working product or mockups in source form — with layers and components, not just images.
- Observed user behavior: analytics funnels, session recordings, heatmaps, a selection of support requests.
- Constraints: platforms and screen sizes, brand book requirements, mandatory blocks, and legal texts.
- Technical outline: what the interface is built on, which elements are already moved into a shared library, and who builds the layout.
- Acceptance criteria: what we consider the result — share of completed scenarios, number of input errors, time to complete the form.
Next we break scenarios into steps, mark places where users get lost, and assemble a work plan: sequence of stages, approval points, and order of handoff to development.
We name the team composition right away and do not change it along the way — interaction designer, visual designer, researcher, interface engineer. The estimate comes broken down by stage, so the scope is visible before the start.