Interfaces that test well in a meeting often fail in the field. The gap between the two is research and prototyping — the parts that get cut first when a timeline tightens.
Almost every design argument is really a disagreement about what users will do. That question has an answer, and finding it is cheaper than shipping the wrong guess.
Interviews and observation with the people who'll actually use it, which routinely surfaces a workflow nobody in the building knew existed.
The whole path from first contact to task complete, including the moments that happen off-screen in an email or a phone call.
Structure decided before visual design, so arguments about layout happen when they cost an afternoon rather than a sprint.
States, transitions, and error handling — the parts of an interface that get discovered in development if they aren't designed.
Components, tokens, and rules your developers build from, so screen forty looks like screen one without anyone policing it.
Watching real people attempt real tasks on a prototype, and fixing what defeats them before any of it is built.
Design without research still produces a design. It just moves the moment you discover the problems to after launch, when they cost the most to fix.
Once the structure is settled, it still has to work at every width — that's responsive web design.
Tell us where people get stuck or drop out. We'll watch a handful of them attempt it, and come back with what's actually in the way.