UI and UX design company in Delhi
UI and UX design company in Delhi, run by Ram Lakhan. UX is not a visual style, and the word is used loosely enough in the Delhi market that this is worth stating plainly. It is the work of establishing what people are actually trying to do, then removing what stands between them and doing it. A redesign that looks better and performs worse is a common and expensive outcome of treating UX as decoration.
The second thing that gets missed here is the device reality. A large majority of Indian web traffic arrives on a mid-range Android phone over an inconsistent connection, so an interface designed and reviewed on a fast desktop is being evaluated in conditions almost none of its users will experience. Designing for that constraint first tends to produce a better desktop experience anyway.
- Starts with
- Research, not visuals
- Designed for
- Mid-range Android
- Measured by
- INP
- Accessibility
- Designed in
Three things that decide the outcome.
Research is what separates UX from decoration
Understanding the task, watching real people attempt it, and finding where they stall is the part that produces the insight worth designing around. Without it you are decorating a guess. This does not have to be expensive: five people attempting a real task on your current site will surface more actionable problems than a month of internal opinion, and it is the cheapest step in the whole process.
Interaction cost is now a measured ranking input
Interaction to Next Paint measures how quickly a page responds to what a user does, across the whole visit, and it became a Core Web Vital in March 2024. That makes heavy interfaces a measurable search problem, not just a subjective one. Elaborate animations, oversized JavaScript and components that block the main thread now cost you twice, in user patience and in ranking signal.
Accessibility is design work, not a compliance pass at the end
Colour contrast, focus states, touch target size, form labelling and heading structure are all design decisions, and retrofitting them after the visual design is signed off is far more expensive than making them at the point of decision. It also overlaps almost entirely with things that help everyone: readable contrast helps outdoors in Delhi sun, larger touch targets help on a phone in one hand.
What the engagement contains.
- 01
Task-based research
Establishing what users are actually trying to accomplish and watching where they stall, before any interface is drawn.
- 02
Mobile-first interface design
Designed for a mid-range Android on an inconsistent connection first, because that is where most of your traffic actually is.
- 03
Interaction budget
Components designed within an INP budget, so responsiveness is a constraint at design time rather than a problem discovered in field data.
- 04
Accessibility built into the design
Contrast, focus states, touch targets and semantic structure decided during design rather than retrofitted as a compliance exercise.
Questions, answered.
UX is the structural work: what people are trying to do, what steps that takes, what information is needed at each point and what is getting in the way. UI is how that structure is expressed visually, in layout, type, colour and components. Good UI on poor UX produces a beautiful interface people cannot use. The reverse produces something usable and unpleasant. Both matter, and in the Delhi market the word UX is frequently used to mean only the second one.
Some, and it costs far less than most people expect. Watching five real people attempt one genuine task on your current site will surface more actionable problems than weeks of internal discussion, and it does not require a lab or a research budget. What you can skip at small scale is formal quantitative research. What you should not skip is ever watching a real person use the thing before you rebuild it.
Directly, through Core Web Vitals, and indirectly through behaviour. Interaction to Next Paint measures responsiveness and is a Core Web Vital, so an interface heavy enough to block the main thread is a measurable search problem. Beyond that, a site people can use gets engagement that a site people abandon does not. The overlap is large enough that treating UX and technical SEO as separate disciplines usually means one of them gets done badly.
Yes, and it is frequently the higher-return option. A focused audit of one journey, a checkout, an enquiry flow, a signup, usually identifies a handful of specific fixes that can be implemented in the existing design. That is cheaper than a rebuild and the effect is measurable within weeks. A full redesign is warranted when the underlying structure is the problem rather than the details on top of it.
A focused audit of a single journey with prioritised recommendations is typically Rs 40,000 to Rs 80,000 as a fixed-fee project. Full UX and UI design for a site or product runs from around Rs 1,00,000 and scales with screen count and complexity, plus 18% GST. Research adds cost and reliably reduces the risk of designing the wrong thing, which is usually the more expensive mistake.
Yes, with components and the design decisions documented so a developer can build from them without guessing at spacing, states and breakpoints. Where I am also building the site, the handover is less formal because there is no handover, which saves time. Where you have your own development team, the file and its documentation are the deliverable and they are yours regardless of who builds it.
Other web design work in Delhi.
Tell me what it has to achieve.
Start a projectPart of · Website designing company in Delhi
+91-9891327449 · seowithramofficial@gmail.com