User interface
design that clicks

UX design is about how an interface works: the flows, the structure, the logic of how someone gets from landing on a page to completing a task. UI design is about how it looks and feels at the surface: visual hierarchy, typography, colour, spacing, components, micro-interactions. UX decides that the checkout has three steps and what each step asks for. UI decides what those steps actually look like on screen.

In practice the two overlap and good projects treat them as one process rather than two departments. A beautiful interface on top of a broken flow still fails. A logical flow with a confusing visual layer still loses people. We work on both, and on most projects the same team handles UX structure and UI surface so decisions stay consistent. If your project genuinely only needs the visual layer (the flows already work, the structure is sound), we scope UI-only. If the underlying experience has problems, UI polish alone won’t fix it, and we’ll say so.

We design in Figma. Yes, you get the working files. You own the design files for work we do for you. That includes the full Figma project: screens, components, design tokens, prototype flows, and the component library.

This matters more than it sounds. Some agencies keep design files as leverage, so you can’t move to another team or handle small changes in-house without coming back to them. We hand over everything, documented well enough that another designer or your own team can pick it up. If you later want us to keep iterating, that’s because the work is good, not because you’re locked in. The handoff also includes developer-facing specs so your engineers can build from the file directly.

A design system is a documented set of reusable components (buttons, forms, cards, navigation), design tokens (colour, spacing, typography values), and rules for how they combine. Instead of designing every screen from scratch, designers and developers assemble screens from agreed building blocks. It keeps a product visually consistent and speeds up both design and development.

Whether you need one depends on scale. For a small marketing site of 5 to 10 pages, a full design system is overkill, a simpler style guide does the job. For a web app, a product with many screens, or a site that multiple people will keep editing over the years, a design system pays for itself fast: new features stay consistent, onboarding new designers or developers is quicker, and the interface doesn’t drift into inconsistency over time. We scope the right level for your project rather than selling a full system to everyone.

Accessibility is built into the design from the start, not added as a compliance pass at the end. The main areas: colour contrast that meets WCAG AA ratios so text stays readable for low-vision users, colour choices that don’t rely on colour alone to convey meaning (since colour-blind users miss that), focus states for keyboard navigation, text sizing and spacing that work when a user zooms, and touch targets large enough to tap reliably.

An honest note on scope: colour and visual design are part of accessibility, not all of it. Full WCAG compliance also covers semantic HTML, screen reader support, keyboard navigation logic, and ARIA attributes, which is development work as much as design work. We design with accessibility in mind and flag what the build needs to do to get to a given WCAG level. If accessibility compliance is a hard requirement for your project (public sector, certain regulated industries), we plan it as an explicit workstream with the development side rather than assuming the visual layer covers it.

Hourly rate is €60-€65 across all design roles. A focused UI design project (visual design for an existing structure, a defined set of screens) typically runs €4,000 to €12,000. A larger project with a component library, design system, and a wider set of screens runs €12,000 to €30,000. Full product UI with extensive flows, multiple states, and ongoing design support runs higher and is usually scoped as a phased engagement.

What moves the cost most: number of unique screens and states, whether a design system is in scope, how much UX structure work is needed before the UI layer, and how many rounds of iteration the project expects. Pure visual redesign of a sound existing structure is the lower end. UI as part of a from-scratch product build is the higher end. See our pricing page for the broader framework, or book a discovery call to scope your specific project.

Both. Redesigns are actually the more common request. The approach starts with understanding why the current interface underperforms: a usability review, a look at analytics and any heatmap or session-recording data you have, and a check of what users complain about. That tells us whether the problem is the visual layer, the underlying structure, or both.

For redesigns we usually recommend an honest decision early: a visual refresh (new look on the existing structure, faster and cheaper) versus a deeper redesign (rethinking flows and structure, more work but fixes problems a coat of paint won’t). We’ll tell you which one your situation actually needs rather than selling the bigger project by default. For interfaces with significant traffic, we also plan the rollout carefully so a redesign doesn’t tank metrics on launch day, sometimes phasing changes rather than switching everything at once.