UI UX design services that start by measuring what your current interface does, so you can tell afterwards whether the work paid.
Each logo belongs to a real client of the firm. Some engaged us for design, others for work with no interface in it at all.
Design and the research feeding it is the whole of this service. The words inside the interface are written elsewhere, by content marketing.
What you get
Design got much better and much easier to buy, so visual quality stopped separating one product from another. What separates them now is whether anyone checked that the design works, and most of the time nobody did.
Agencies who publish post-mortems on their own client work tend to report the same thing: a minority of redesigns produce a measurable conversion improvement, most produce no change, and some make matters worse. Treat those figures as directional rather than precise, since every one comes from a self-selected client base.
The explanation given is consistent though. Visual design and functional usability are different problems, and a redesign commissioned for appearance and brand consistency is not aimed at clarity, trust or friction. So it improves the thing it was aimed at, and the funnel stays where it was.
The second failure is quieter. Without conversion targets agreed before launch, there is no way to say afterwards whether the work succeeded, and the debate becomes a matter of taste. Reporting also gets read too early, since a changed interface needs roughly 60 to 90 days of data before the trend means anything.
| What most projects do | What that produces |
|---|---|
| Start from a brief about appearance | A better-looking product and an unchanged funnel |
| No baseline before work starts | No way to prove the outcome either way |
| Success defined after launch | An argument about taste instead of evidence |
| Results read at four weeks | Noise mistaken for a trend |
Arabic interfaces are usually built by mirroring an English layout rather than designing for right-to-left reading. Numerals, mixed-direction input and form alignment all behave differently, and the result is a version that technically works and quietly performs worse.
What teams need: to know what the interface did before, so the comparison is possible at all.
How we solve it: the baseline gets measured and the target agreed before any design work begins.
What teams need: a structure that new work fits into instead of sitting beside.
How we solve it: information architecture and a component system that constrain how things get added.
What teams need: right-to-left treated as a design problem rather than a translation task.
How we solve it: Arabic layouts designed natively, then tested with people who read Arabic daily.
What teams need: to see where people actually get stuck rather than where the team assumes they do.
How we solve it: moderated usability testing on the real product, with the recordings handed over.
What teams need: the reasoning written down somewhere other than in somebody's head.
How we solve it: a documented design system with the rationale attached to each component.
What teams need: to know whether the cause is speed, layout or the flow itself.
How we solve it: mobile behaviour is separated from desktop in the baseline, then diagnosed on real devices.
Evaluation guides tell buyers to make agencies itemise research, testing, wireframes, design system work, developer handoff and post-launch support, and to confirm the files come back editable. Itemised below.
| Feature | What It Means for Your Operations |
|---|---|
| Performance baseline before design starts | You get a recorded starting point, so the argument about whether the work paid becomes a comparison rather than an opinion. |
| Moderated usability testing on the live product | Your team watches real people fail at real tasks, which ends most internal disagreements faster than a report does. |
| UX audit available on its own | You can buy the diagnosis without committing to the redesign, and take the findings to any designer you choose. |
| Feature | What It Means for Your Operations |
|---|---|
| Information architecture and user flows | New features fit into a structure instead of being bolted onto the side, which is what stops products getting cluttered. |
| Documented design system in Figma | The reasoning outlives whoever made it, so a designer leaving stops being a product risk. |
| Editable files and research artefacts transferred | You own the source files, the prototypes and the research, not a folder of exported PDFs. |
| Native Arabic and right-to-left layouts | Arabic users get a designed product rather than a mirrored one, which is where most bilingual interfaces lose them. |
| WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility | People using assistive software reach the end of the journey, which also clears a box that stalls public-sector bids. |
| Feature | What It Means for Your Operations |
|---|---|
| Prototype testing before build | Faults get found while they cost an afternoon rather than after they cost a sprint. |
| Post-launch measurement against the agreed target | You find out whether it worked, including when it did not, which is the part most engagements quietly skip. |
| Design specifications for developers | Your build team implements from annotated specs instead of interpreting a picture. Where the question is which project comes first, that is digital strategy. |
Building the designs is separate work, and it sits with website development.
| Step 1: Baseline |
We record how the current interface performs and agree which number the work should move. | OUTPUT: A written baseline with an agreed success target. |
| >>> | ||
| Step 2: Research |
We watch real users attempt real tasks and identify where they stop. | OUTPUT: Session recordings, task results and a ranked problem list. |
| >>> | ||
| Step 3: Design |
Flows, structure and interface are built against the problems found, not against a mood board. | OUTPUT: Interactive prototypes and a documented design system. |
| >>> | ||
| Step 4: Test |
Prototypes go back in front of users before anything gets built. | OUTPUT: Test results and a revised design with the changes explained. |
| >>> | ||
| Step 5: Measure |
After launch we report against the target agreed in step one. | OUTPUT: A comparison at 60 to 90 days, whichever way it went. |
Accessibility is a procurement condition, and the audience includes people with no alternative provider.
The funnel is measurable end to end, which makes this the easiest sector to prove design work in or out.
Two audiences use the same product differently, and designing for one usually damages the other.
Required disclosure competes with clarity, and the design job is fitting both without burying either.
Users are often stressed or unwell, so error prevention outranks efficiency at every decision.
People use it daily under time pressure, so speed of repeated tasks matters more than first impressions.
Browsing and comparison carry the experience, so filtering and search behaviour decide whether people book.
Interfaces get used in gloves, in vans and in poor light, which rules out a lot of otherwise good design.
Across the Kingdom, and usually on products where Arabic is the interface people actually use rather than the alternate version.
European products where accessibility requirements shape the design brief from the start.
Products built for domestic users and export markets from the same codebase, which usually means two quite different sets of expectations.
Nothing in the approach is tied to a country. Language, handset mix and the job the user came to do all vary, so all three get researched at the start of each engagement.
UI UX design services in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah, usually where a product serves Arabic and English audiences at once.
On one Gulf group's homepage, every logo in the client trust strip carried an empty alt attribute. Thirty organisations, several of them household names, were invisible to screen readers, to search crawlers and to the AI assistants the company was separately trying to appear in. The strip had been treated as decoration rather than content.
verified Live crawl, 4 September 2026. 20 of 20 rendered logo images had alt=""; a wider sweep found 30 client logos on the domain.
108 URLs on a single site failed Google's interaction-to-next-paint threshold of 200 milliseconds on mobile, and 172 failed largest-contentful-paint at 2.5 seconds. Not one URL on the domain recorded a good Core Web Vitals score. The site had been redesigned twice without an interaction budget ever being set.
verified Core Web Vitals export, 24 July 2026. Zero URLs in the good bucket across the full reporting period.
The same homepage animated its client logos in a continuous marquee of 42 items with no reduced-motion guard and no width or height on any image. Users who had asked their operating system to reduce motion got the animation anyway, and every visitor paid for the layout shift.
verified Live crawl, 4 September 2026. Marquee declared --marquee-items: 42, no prefers-reduced-motion rule present.
Mobile visitors to one professional-services site converted at more than twice the desktop rate, 0.89% against 0.34%, while receiving under a third of the traffic. Design effort had gone almost entirely into the desktop layout on the assumption that a B2B audience browses at a desk.
verified Device breakdown, sixteen months to 31 August 2026. Desktop 8,340 clicks from 2.47M impressions; mobile 3,173 from 355,000.
An interface nobody has measured keeps charging you in ways that never reach a budget line. Support handles the same three questions every week, and the cost shows up under support rather than under design.
Then the next redesign gets commissioned on the same basis as the last one. No baseline, no target, and afterwards no way to tell whether it worked, so the argument about design becomes a matter of who is more senior.
Meanwhile the undocumented decisions keep leaving with whoever made them, and each departure makes the product a little harder to change safely.
UI/UX design is not an administrative cost. It is the infrastructure that decides whether the people already using your product can finish what they came to do.
We measure how your current product performs and watch a handful of real users try to complete the task that matters most. Most baselines surface a drop-off the team had never located.
A measured baseline, user research, information architecture, interface design, a documented design system and post-launch measurement. You receive editable source files, prototypes and the research artefacts. Building the designs into a working product is separate work.
Because we record what the interface does before touching it and agree which number should move. Most redesigns fail that test for one reason: appearance and usability get treated as the same problem, so work aimed at the first is judged as though it addressed the second. Ours starts from the funnel, not the mood board.
Yes, and it is the question worth asking every supplier you shortlist. We will walk through where testing overturned a decision the team had already made, including the ones we got wrong first. A studio that cannot answer this is decorating rather than designing.
Against a target agreed in step one, using task success rate, drop-off at the step that matters, and error rate. We report at 60 to 90 days, because a changed interface needs that much data before the trend is readable. If the number did not move, the report says so.
A UX audit runs two to four weeks. A full redesign runs eight to fourteen weeks depending on screen count and how much research already exists. Measurement then sits 60 to 90 days after launch, which is outside the design timeline.
Yes, all of it, and in editable form. Figma source files, prototypes, the component library, session recordings and the research repository transfer to your business. Exported PDFs are not a handover, and buyers are right to check this before signing anything.
A component library with states and usage rules, design tokens for colour, spacing and type, and written reasoning behind the decisions that were contested. The point is that a future designer can make a consistent choice without asking anyone. That is what stops a departure becoming a product risk.
Yes, and a fair number of clients stop there. You get the baseline, the research findings and a ranked list of fixes, and you are free to take that to your own team or another designer. We would rather sell a two-week audit than a redesign nobody needed.
Often, and the baseline usually shows that a handful of screens carry most of the loss. Targeted work on those is faster and easier to prove than replacing everything. We will say when a rebuild is genuinely the better option, even though it is the larger engagement.
Yes, designed natively rather than mirrored from an English layout. That covers navigation direction, Arabic typography, numeral handling and mixed-direction input fields, all tested with people who read Arabic daily. Mirroring a Latin layout is where most bilingual products quietly lose half their users.
Yes, and mobile gets measured as its own funnel rather than as a subset of desktop. Device mix and connection speed vary sharply by market, so testing happens on real handsets rather than in a browser resizer. Touch targets and form length are usually where mobile abandonment starts.
WCAG 2.2 AA, checked by driving the interface from the keyboard alone and then again through assistive software. In practice that means legible contrast, a focus path that follows the visual order, labelled inputs and error text that says what went wrong. Public bodies require it. Everyone else gets a product more people can finish a task in.
Yes. Some clients need a second opinion on a design already in progress, a review of a system their team built, or someone to sit with an internal designer for a fixed period. None of that requires a project engagement.
No. The bulk of what we design is software, retail, clinical, education, logistics and public-sector products. Finance experience earns its place for one specific reason: those screens must carry mandated disclosure and still let somebody finish a task, and solving that makes ordinary interfaces easy by comparison.
A digital strategy sets the plan. These are the teams that execute it, all under one roof at Prima:
A slow or confusing interface costs conversions every day it stays live. Prima Consulting's UI/UX design team researches, tests and builds interfaces around the users you actually have, in the markets you actually operate in.
30-minute call. No obligation. Scoped to your firm.
Ready to elevate your business with Prima Consulting? Fill out the form below to discuss your needs with our experts and discover how we can help you achieve your business goals.
We Schedule a call at your convenience
We do a discovery and consulting meeting
We prepare a proposal
