Web & Digital Experiences
Research-led interfaces that make products and portals easier to use.

02 / Web & Digital Experiences6 capabilities · 7 deliverables
The problem
Software gets built feature by feature. A request comes in, a screen is added, a setting gets a toggle. After a year, the interface reflects the order in which things were built, not the order in which people do their work. New users need a walkthrough, support answers the same questions weekly, and experienced users develop workarounds the team never sees.
The usual response is to ask users what they want, which produces a list of features rather than an understanding of the job. Without watching people attempt real tasks, teams argue from opinion, and redesigns tend to move the same confusion into a different layout.
Sound familiar?
Our solution
We begin with the people who use the product: interviews, session recordings if you have them, and observation of the actual task. From that we map the jobs users are trying to do, where they hesitate, and where the current flow forces them to think about the system instead of their work.
Designs are then built as clickable prototypes and tested with five to eight representative users before any code is written. That is enough to surface the majority of usability problems at a point where fixing them costs a design revision rather than a development sprint. What reaches developers is a validated flow with defined states, not a guess.
Capabilities
Structured conversations and screen-share sessions with customers and staff, focused on what people do rather than what they say they want.
End-to-end maps of key tasks that mark each decision, hand-off and failure point, so redesign effort goes where users actually struggle.
Clickable prototypes at realistic fidelity for testing, stakeholder sign-off and developer reference, built in Figma.
Moderated sessions where representative users attempt defined tasks, with findings ranked by severity and tied to specific screens.
Screens, forms, tables, empty states, error messages and loading states designed as a coherent component system, not one-off pages.
Tokens, components and usage notes that keep a growing product consistent as more people contribute to it.
Process
We review analytics and support history, interview users and stakeholders, and write down the tasks that matter most and the problems blocking them.
Core task flows are mapped and sketched as wireframes, then reviewed with your team to confirm scope and edge cases.
A clickable prototype is built and put in front of real users. We observe where they stall and revise the design based on what we saw.
Final screens, states and component specs are handed to engineering, and we stay available during the build to answer questions and review the result.
You receive
Where it fits best
FAQ
You know what they ask for, which is different from how they behave when completing a task. A short round of interviews and observation usually turns up two or three problems the team had stopped noticing. If you have recent, good research already, we will use it and skip that phase.
Typically five to eight per round, chosen to match your real audience. Small rounds find most of the serious usability problems, and running two short rounds is more useful than one large one because the second checks that the fixes worked.
Both. For existing products we start from analytics, support tickets and observation of current use, then redesign the highest-friction flows first instead of rebuilding every screen. Incremental changes can often be released without a risky full relaunch.
Design and engineering are separate scopes. We hand over specified, tested designs that your developers can build, or we can build the front end ourselves through our web development service. Keeping the same team on both tends to reduce interpretation gaps.
Send a few lines about what you're trying to move. We'll reply with questions, a rough shape of the work, or an honest no.
Or write to hello@asoftbit.com