UX Design Backed by Evidence, Not Opinion
User research, journey mapping, information architecture and usability testing that tell you which screens matter, where users actually give up, and what to build before you spend a sprint on it.
What are UX design services?
UX design services determine what a product should do and in what order, using evidence rather than preference. They cover user research and interviews, journey and service mapping, information architecture, wireframing, prototyping, usability testing with real participants, and analysis of existing behavioural data. Anviam runs these as short, decision-focused engagements: each study is framed around a specific decision you need to make, and reports what to change rather than only what was observed.
- UX audit
- 2–3 weeks, written findings
- Research sprint
- 3–5 weeks including testing
- Usability tests
- 5–8 participants per segment
- Methods
- Interviews, tree tests, moderated testing
- Deliverables
- Findings, prioritised fixes, wireframes
- Data used
- Analytics, session replay, support tickets
The Cheapest Feature Is the One You Decide Not to Build
Teams rarely lack ideas. They lack an agreed basis for choosing between them, so the loudest stakeholder wins and the backlog fills with features that get built, shipped and ignored. UX research is mostly a way of making that choice cheaper: a week of interviews and five usability sessions costs a fraction of a sprint, and it regularly kills or reshapes work that would have been wasted.
We keep studies small and tied to a decision. Not "let us research the product" but "should onboarding be one page or three, and what is stopping people at step two". Five participants surface most severe usability problems, so we prefer several small rounds over one large study, and we always read the data you already have first: analytics funnels, session replays and support tickets usually point straight at the problem before anyone is interviewed.
UX Design & Research Services
UX Audit & Heuristic Review
Expert review of your existing product against usability principles, with findings prioritised by severity and fix cost.
User Research & Interviews
Structured interviews and contextual enquiry with your real users, synthesised into decisions rather than quotes.
Journey & Service Mapping
End-to-end maps of how people actually get things done, including the steps that happen outside your product.
Information Architecture
Navigation and content structures validated with tree testing and card sorting instead of internal debate.
Wireframing & Prototyping
Low and high-fidelity prototypes built specifically to be tested, so flows are validated before they are engineered.
Usability Testing
Moderated sessions with task scenarios, recorded and analysed, producing a ranked list of what to fix.
Methods and Tools We Use
When Teams Call Us for UX Work
Funnel Drop-Off
Analytics show people leaving at a specific step and nobody can agree why.
Support Ticket Patterns
The same confusion arriving repeatedly, which is a design problem wearing a support costume.
Low Feature Adoption
Something shipped that nobody uses, and the question is whether to fix it or remove it.
Contested Roadmap
Two credible internal positions on what to build next, with no evidence to settle it.
Unusable Navigation
A product that grew feature by feature until nobody can find anything.
Pre-Build Validation
A significant investment about to start, where a prototype test is cheap insurance.
How a UX Engagement Runs
Frame the Decision
We agree what decision the research must inform, which determines method and sample size.
Mine Existing Data
Analytics, session replays and support tickets first, because the answer is often already there.
Research & Test
Interviews or moderated usability sessions with participants matched to your real segments.
Synthesise & Prioritise
Findings ranked by severity against implementation cost, so the backlog is immediately actionable.
Design & Re-Test
Wireframes or prototypes for the priority fixes, validated in a second round before build.
Common Questions About UX Design Services
Five to eight per distinct user segment finds the large majority of severe usability problems, and additional participants in the same segment mostly repeat what you have already learned. So the sample scales with segment count, not with total user base: a product serving both clinicians and administrators needs both groups. For quantitative questions such as comparing two designs on completion rate, sample sizes are much larger and we would recommend an A/B test instead.
Yes, through several routes. We recruit screened participants from research panels matched to your criteria, which works well for consumer and general business products. For narrow professional audiences, panel recruitment gets expensive and slow, so we lean more on your existing behavioural data, support tickets and sales call recordings, plus expert heuristic review. We will be explicit about the confidence level that mix gives you.
An audit is expert review: experienced designers evaluate your product against established usability principles and flag likely problems. It is fast and inexpensive, and it catches the obvious issues. Usability testing puts real users in front of real tasks and shows you what actually happens, which regularly surprises everyone. Audits are a good first step; testing is what settles disagreements about whether something is genuinely confusing.
A UX audit is two to three weeks including the written report. A research sprint with recruitment, interviews or usability sessions, synthesis and prioritised recommendations is typically three to five weeks, with recruitment usually the longest single step. If you need something faster, we can run an audit plus five sessions with your existing customers in about two weeks.
Wireframes and prototypes, yes, because those are research instruments. Production-ready visual design is a separate UI and design-system engagement, and we usually recommend running them in sequence so visual work happens after the flow is validated. Many clients do both with us; the deliverables and the skills involved are genuinely different, so we scope them separately rather than blurring them.
Every finding gets a severity rating, an estimated implementation cost and a specific recommendation, then the whole set is ranked. You end up with a list you can pull directly into a sprint, starting with high-severity and low-cost items. We also record short clips of participants hitting each major problem, which does more to align stakeholders than any amount of written summary.