UX Consulting
Strategic UX expertise for teams building enterprise software, B2B platforms, and AI-powered products. I help you stop guessing and start designing with evidence.
What I offer
Four services, all pointed at the same outcome: a shorter list of the right things to fix, in an order your team can actually execute.
A screen-by-screen analysis of your product with prioritized, actionable recommendations. I identify exactly where users are getting stuck and what to fix first for maximum impact.
Translating complex business requirements into clear user flows. I help you understand how your organization operates and identify where technology creates the most meaningful impact.
Creating and governing scalable component libraries that unify designers, developers, QA, and product owners around consistent implementation standards they can rely on.
Connecting user insights, team knowledge, executive priorities, and client needs into strategic recommendations that resonate with both business goals and user needs.
Selected clients




Engagement formats
Each format has a fixed scope, a named end date, and a deliverable you can hand to an engineer. Start small if you'd rather see the work before committing to a program — most teams do.
You know the experience is costing you something and need an expert read on where, and in what order to fix it.
The product has grown by accretion, teams disagree about the direction, and someone needs to turn that into a plan.
You have a component library that designers and developers have quietly stopped agreeing on.
You have a capable team that would move faster with a senior second opinion on tap.
Every engagement is quoted as a fixed scope after a free 30-minute call — no hourly meter, no change orders. Published agency UX programs commonly run from the mid five figures into six; working with an independent consultant means you pay for the diagnosis you need rather than a team you don't. If a two-week audit would settle the question, I won't propose a six-week program.
Deliverables
The output is built to be worked, not admired. Each row is written so a designer or engineer can pick it up without asking me what I meant.
A list of 60 problems is a burden. The value is in the ranking, and the ranking has to reflect what your team can actually ship this quarter.
How prioritization works
"High priority" means nothing without a rubric behind it. Every issue I log is rated against the same four levels, which is what lets a 60-item audit be argued about productively instead of line by line.
Severity describes the consequence for the user and the business. Effort is estimated separately, with your team — a critical issue that takes a quarter to fix still gets planned, not skipped.
| Level | What it means | Typical example | How it's scheduled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Users cannot complete a core task, lose data, or are blocked entirely — including by an accessibility barrier. | A required field that fails silently, so the form can never be submitted with a screen reader. | Fixed now, ahead of roadmap work. |
| Serious | The task is completable but many users fail, take a wrong path, or need support to finish. | A destructive action that looks identical to a safe one, generating support tickets weekly. | Scheduled into the next sprint or two. |
| Moderate | Users get through with avoidable friction, hesitation, or rework. | Inconsistent labels between the nav and the page it leads to, so people backtrack. | Batched into the next planned work on that surface. |
| Minor | Polish and consistency issues with no measurable effect on task success. | Spacing and type-scale drift across three variants of the same card. | Rolled into design-system cleanup, or explicitly dropped. |
The scale is a working convention — adapted from standard usability severity practice — not a certification. What matters is that it's applied consistently across the whole audit and written down, so your team can challenge a rating rather than re-litigate the whole list.
How it works
Week 1
We start with a conversation about your product, your users, and where you're seeing friction. I review what you have — analytics, support themes, past research — and agree which flows are in scope.
Week 1–2
I dig into your product — flows, interfaces, data — and benchmark it against best practices, category conventions, and real user behavior patterns.
Week 2–3
Findings are rated for severity, then sized with your engineers so the ranking reflects what you can actually ship rather than an outsider's guess.
Week 3–4
You receive a prioritized report with specific, implementable recommendations tied to business outcomes, plus a walkthrough where the team can push back on any of them.
Ongoing
I stay involved through implementation to answer questions, review designs, and make sure the recommendations turn into real product improvements.
Fit
A good fit
Probably not a fit
An audit tells you what's broken against known principles. When you need evidence about your specific users, research is the better first move.
Client feedback
"Since joining us, Estele has been an integral part of the Tableau to PowerBI migration research effort. Her contributions have been instrumental in helping us make an informed decision about our Data Visualization Strategy."
"It's been great working with Estele. I have really appreciated her attention to detail and professionalism. Her work certainly helped us clarify the right course of action."
"Estele was able to contribute to our overall change management impacts with her useful insights."
Detailed walkthroughs of this work — methodology, artefacts, and outcomes — live on my portfolio site.
How I think about the craft
Two pieces that cover most of what I'd say on a call — how recommendations get made, and what it takes for them to survive contact with a roadmap.
How to structure and present findings so stakeholders act on them instead of filing them away.
The difference between learning what's broken and understanding why users struggle — and how to design studies that uncover the latter.
Questions