UX design services
Research, flows, wireframes, prototypes, UI. The whole problem – not just the part that fits neatly into a scope.
Three UX services. Two UX designers. One conversation to figure out which.
Tanya and Iryna have narrowed it down to three – not a capabilities deck, not everything a UX design agency could theoretically offer. They’ve been doing them long enough to know where one ends and the next begins – worth establishing before a project starts rather than somewhere in the middle of it.
What we do
What each one covers.
Each service is a different amount of involvement. None of them is a different standard.
An audit gets the same pair of eyes as a year-long engagement – there isn’t a junior tier to hand the small work to. What changes between the three is how long they stay, not how hard they look.
Recent work
What each one produced.
Three services, and one example of each that made it all the way to launch. The ones that didn’t aren’t here, which is how portfolios work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently asked. Actually answered.
The questions that tend to come up around this point. Answered the same way they’d be answered in person.
Usually the one you did not come in asking for. That is what the first call is for: thirty minutes with the product open, and the answer is generally obvious to both sides by the end of it.
That is the most common route. An audit costs a fortnight and tells you whether the design work is worth doing at all, which is a cheaper way to find out than starting it.
Frequently. A website rebuild that turns out to be a positioning problem, or a design engagement that starts with two weeks of consulting because the brief describes the wrong thing. The three are how the work is priced, not how it is divided.
Primarily B2B SaaS companies at Series A to Series C. The common thread is a product team that has outgrown its current design capacity – no dedicated designer, a designer without the senior experience a specific challenge needs, or a design function that isn’t moving fast enough for the roadmap. Also B2B companies redesigning their marketing website ahead of a funding round or an enterprise sales push.
A decision about what to do first, and the reasoning behind it. Not a slide deck summarising what you already know – those exist to justify the fee rather than change anything.
Tanya or Iryna will say so, ideally before the contract rather than after. Selling the wrong service is a short-term win and a long-term reputation problem, and there are only two of them to have one.
Two weeks inside the product before anything is designed, then the order to fix things in. The looking is the part clients are least prepared for and the part that changes the outcome.
Either. If you have a team, they get files and someone reachable while it is being built. If you do not, the build is in-house – front-end and back-end – which is usually why a website project here does not stall at handover.
React, Laravel, WordPress – whatever the project actually calls for. The stack gets chosen on what your team can maintain after handover rather than on what would be interesting to build, which is why WordPress is still on that list.
You do, unless you would rather not. Things are built to be handed over – a CMS your team can actually use, no dependency on the studio to change a heading. Some clients keep Tanya and Iryna on anyway, which is a choice rather than a requirement.
