Find out exactly what's broken — and fix the right things first.
Most products don't need a full redesign. They need a rigorous diagnosis of what's actually causing friction, followed by targeted fixes to the specific flows that are losing users. A UX audit combines expert heuristic evaluation with real user observation to produce a ranked list of every significant usability problem in your product, each one explained, evidenced, and assigned a severity. The redesign phase then fixes the highest-impact problems first, using validated changes rather than a complete visual overhaul. The result is measurable improvement on the metrics that matter — without the risk and cost of rebuilding from scratch.
UX audit and redesign at Origin Softwares starts with rigorous diagnosis before any design work begins. We combine expert heuristic evaluation with real user observation to produce a ranked issue log, then fix the highest-impact problems using validated changes rather than a complete visual overhaul. Clients choose us because we are specific about what is broken and why, and we deliver measurable improvement on targeted flows without the cost and risk of rebuilding from scratch.
What is a UX audit and what does it deliver?
A UX audit is a structured evaluation of a product's usability — what is causing friction for users, how frequently they encounter it, and how severely it affects their ability to complete tasks. At Origin Softwares, every audit combines expert heuristic evaluation against Nielsen's 10 usability principles with moderated sessions observing real users attempting real tasks. The output is a prioritised issue log with severity, frequency, and fix-effort ratings for every finding, an opportunity prioritisation map, and recommendations for which problems to fix first. For most products, targeted fixes to the highest-priority issues produce faster results than a full redesign.
The problems this solves
- The team knows the product has usability problems but lacks a structured method for diagnosing which problems are causing the most harm
- Conversion rates are below industry benchmarks but internal disagreement about the root cause prevents action
- Activation rates are low but the team is uncertain whether the problem is in the onboarding flow or earlier in the acquisition journey
- A recent redesign improved aesthetics but did not move the metrics the business cares about
- Users frequently contact support with confusion about specific workflows, but no one has mapped which specific steps are causing the confusion
- The product has accumulated years of incremental additions and the information architecture no longer reflects how users think about their tasks
Business outcomes
- 40% average task completion rate increase on flows that receive targeted redesigns based on audit findings
- Activation rates improve measurably when the specific steps where users abandon configuration are identified and redesigned
- Support ticket volume decreases when the specific workflows generating confusion are redesigned based on observed failure patterns
- Targeted redesign of three to five flows is significantly less expensive than a full product rebuild and often produces comparable metric improvements
- The prioritised issue log produces a design backlog that the internal team can work through systematically after the engagement
- A/B testing infrastructure built alongside redesigned flows produces compounding improvements as subsequent tests run
Who is this for?
Products with measurable conversion or activation problems
Teams who have a specific metric that is below target and need a diagnosis before spending on a redesign.
Post-launch products with accumulated usability debt
Products that have been iterated for years and have accumulated interaction inconsistencies and information architecture drift.
Teams preparing for a major marketing push
Organisations about to invest significantly in user acquisition who want to ensure the product converts new users before spending on traffic.
Products after a failed redesign
Teams whose most recent redesign improved visual quality but did not improve the metrics the business needs to move.
Enterprise products with high support volume
Internal tools or customer-facing products where support ticket volume indicates specific workflow problems.
Products expanding to new user segments
Products adding a new user type whose mental model differs significantly from the existing user base, creating friction in the current design.
When UX Audit & Redesign may not be the right fit
We'd rather tell you upfront than waste your time and budget.
- Your product is too early to have real users — a UX audit on a prototype without usage data is primarily a heuristic evaluation, which is a lighter-touch engagement
- You have a clear, validated understanding of the usability problems and are ready to go directly to redesign — the audit phase may not add value if diagnosis is already complete
- You need a full brand and visual overhaul — a UX audit addresses structural usability and interaction problems, not visual identity
- You are looking for a quick visual polish rather than a diagnosis-first approach — meaningful improvement from a UX audit requires willingness to change flows that may not have obvious visual problems
What's included
- Expert heuristic evaluation (Nielsen's 10 principles)
- Moderated usability sessions with real users
- Analytics & session recording interpretation
- Prioritised issue log by severity & frequency
- Redesign of highest-impact flows
- A/B testable improvement recommendations
How we deliver
Heuristic Evaluation
Expert evaluation of the product against established usability principles.
- Product walkthrough covering all primary user flows
- Evaluation against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics
- Preliminary issue log with severity ratings
- Review with client to prioritise user session focus areas
User Sessions
Observe real users attempting real tasks to validate and extend the issue list.
- Participant recruitment against a role-matched screener
- Moderated usability sessions with 5–8 participants
- Session recording and structured observation documentation
- Analytics and session recording review to add quantitative context
Synthesis & Prioritisation
Turn observations into a ranked action list.
- Affinity mapping of observations across all evaluation methods
- Severity matrix scoring for every finding
- Opportunity prioritisation map production
- Client review and priority confirmation
Redesign
Fix the highest-impact problems with validated solutions.
- Redesign of top 3–5 highest-priority flows in Figma
- A/B test variant designs for key improvements
- Prototype testing of redesigned flows with users
- Developer-ready handoff with annotated files
How long does a UX audit take from start to final report?
A comprehensive UX audit at Origin Softwares — combining heuristic evaluation with user sessions — takes three to four weeks. The heuristic evaluation produces preliminary findings in the first week, user recruitment and session scheduling occupies week two, sessions run in week two or three, and synthesis and report production takes one additional week. An express heuristic evaluation without user sessions can be completed in five to seven working days. We recommend the comprehensive approach for any product with meaningful user volume, because some problems only surface when real users encounter them. The final issue log rates every finding by severity, frequency, and fix effort, giving clients a ready-made prioritisation framework for their design backlog.
Technologies we use
- Figma
- Maze
- Hotjar
- FullStory
- Lookback
- Google Analytics 4
- Mixpanel
- Optimal Workshop
Architecture & scalability
- Audit scope should be defined at the flow level, not the screen level — a flow includes all states, error conditions, and edge cases, not just the happy path
- Issue severity ratings must account for the user's ability to recover from the problem — a blocking error with no recovery path is always critical regardless of frequency
- Redesign solutions should be assessed against the existing information architecture before implementation — a fix that requires restructuring the navigation is a different scope from a fix that changes button placement
- A/B test design requires that the change being tested is isolated from confounding variables — redesigns that change multiple elements simultaneously cannot be attributed to individual causes
- Accessibility issues discovered in the audit are typically cross-cutting — they often indicate a systemic problem in the design system rather than an isolated screen-level issue
- Post-audit measurement requires that baseline metrics are defined and captured before any redesign changes are deployed — without a baseline, the improvement cannot be measured
UX Improvement Approaches Compared
| Criterion | UX audit + targeted redesign | Full product redesign | A/B testing only |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnoses root cause | Yes — heuristic + user sessions | Sometimes — depends on research phase | No — tests variants, not root causes |
| Validates before redesigning | Yes — issues validated before fixes begin | Sometimes — if research is included | Yes — but iteratively, not upfront |
| Timeline | 3–8 weeks | 12–20 weeks | Ongoing |
| Scope | Highest-impact flows redesigned | All screens rebuilt | Single elements tested at a time |
Why choose Origin Softwares
Our approach
- We audit before we redesign on every engagement — redesigning assumed problems is how you get a beautiful product that still does not convert
- Every issue in the audit report is assigned severity, frequency, and fix-effort ratings — you receive a prioritised action list, not a laundry list
- Redesign recommendations are scoped to what is achievable within the client's existing tech stack to maximise the speed of improvement
- A/B test plans are delivered alongside redesigned flows so improvements can be validated before full rollout
- We do not recommend a full redesign unless the audit evidence supports it — targeted fixes are often more effective and always faster
Delivery standards
- Heuristic evaluation conducted against Nielsen's 10 usability principles with every finding evidenced
- User sessions recorded and observations documented session by session before synthesis begins
- Issue log formatted for stakeholder review — severity, frequency, evidence reference, and fix-effort rating for every finding
- Redesigned flows delivered in annotated Figma with A/B test variant versions
- Post-audit report reviewed by a senior designer before delivery
Quality assurance
- Heuristic evaluation reviewed by a second evaluator to reduce individual assessor bias
- Session recordings reviewed against the initial heuristic findings to confirm and add to the issue list
- Priority ratings calibrated against client-provided conversion and support data where available
- Redesign solutions reviewed against the original issue specification to confirm the fix addresses the diagnosed problem
- A/B test plan reviewed to ensure test hypothesis, success metric, and sample size calculation are sound
Security practices
- All product access (staging or production environments) provided under NDA before the engagement begins
- Session recordings stored in access-controlled cloud storage and deleted after project completion
- No screenshots, recordings, or audit findings shared outside the engagement team
- Analytics access limited to read-only during the engagement and revoked upon project completion
Performance
- Severity matrix calibrated against actual user drop-off data where available to ensure priority ratings reflect business impact
- Redesigned flow prototypes tested with users before handoff to validate the fix works
- A/B test sample size calculations based on current traffic volume and the minimum detectable effect that is commercially meaningful
- Post-launch success metrics defined before redesign begins so improvement is measurable against a clear baseline
What you receive
- Heuristic evaluation report with all findings evidenced and rated
- Recorded usability sessions with synthesis notes
- Prioritised issue log with severity, frequency, and fix-effort ratings
- Opportunity prioritisation map
- Redesigned Figma files for top 3–5 highest-impact flows
- A/B testing plan with hypothesis, variants, success metrics, and sample size requirements
Support tiers
- Post-delivery availability for questions on the issue log and redesign rationale
- Implementation support: design review when redesigned flows go into development to catch interpretation gaps
- Post-test analysis: assistance interpreting A/B test results and scoping the next iteration
Why Origin for UX Audit & Redesign
Diagnosis before prescription
We audit before we redesign — every time. Redesigning based on assumed problems is how you end up with a beautiful product that still doesn't convert.
Severity matrix, not a laundry list
Every issue is rated by frequency, impact, and fix effort. You get a prioritised action list, not a list of everything that could theoretically be better.
A/B testable recommendations
We design improvements as testable changes wherever possible. You validate the fix works before rolling it to all users.
Industries we serve
Typical delivery timeline
| Phase | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Heuristic Evaluation | 3–5 days | Expert evaluation of all primary flows against established usability principles. |
| User Recruitment & Sessions | 1–2 weeks | Participant recruitment, session facilitation, and observation documentation. |
| Synthesis & Reporting | 1 week | Issue prioritisation, opportunity map, and audit report production. |
| Redesign | 2–4 weeks | Redesign of highest-priority flows and A/B test variant production. |
Before you start — a checklist
Use this to prepare for your first conversation with us.
- Do you have a specific metric you are trying to improve, or is the problem more general dissatisfaction? Specific metrics make the audit more focused and the improvements more measurable.
- Do you have analytics instrumentation that can provide baseline conversion, drop-off, and task completion data? Quantitative data makes issue prioritisation more accurate.
- Can you provide access to the live product and, ideally, real users for testing? Remote access to staging is sufficient for the heuristic evaluation.
- Is the goal to fix the most impactful problems quickly, or to understand the full scope of usability issues across the product? The former argues for a focused audit; the latter for a comprehensive one.
- Are you prepared to act on findings even if they indicate that the problems are structural rather than surface-level? Audits sometimes reveal that the right fix requires more than a targeted patch.
- Do you have engineering capacity available to implement the redesigned flows within a defined timeframe after delivery?
Maintenance & support
- Post-delivery support for questions on the issue log and redesign rationale
- Implementation review session when redesigned flows enter development
- A/B test results analysis assistance to interpret outcomes and scope follow-on iterations
- Follow-on design sprint to address secondary issues identified in the audit once primary fixes have been validated
- Six-month follow-up audit to measure metric improvements and identify newly emerging issues
“We thought our sign-up flow was the problem. The audit showed users were confident signing up but lost at the first configuration step. We fixed that one screen and activation went from 34% to 61%.”
Frequently asked questions
Planning & scope
- How do you scope a UX audit engagement?
- Scoping starts with identifying the flows where problems are most likely to be impacting the metrics you care about — sign-up, onboarding, checkout, configuration, or core daily workflows. We scope the audit around those flows, with a secondary pass on less critical areas. A focused audit of three to five flows produces more actionable output than a shallow sweep of the entire product.
- What is the typical cost of a UX audit and redesign?
- An express heuristic evaluation starts from ₹1.5 lakh. A comprehensive audit with user sessions and synthesis runs ₹3–6 lakh. An audit plus redesign of the top three to five flows runs ₹6–12 lakh depending on redesign complexity. We provide a fixed-price proposal after a scoping call.
- Can we run just the audit without the redesign?
- Yes — many clients run the audit phase independently and hand off the findings to an internal design team for redesign. The audit output is structured to serve as a design brief. We recommend this approach when you have design capacity in-house and want to direct it with evidence rather than assumption.
- How soon after the audit can we start implementing changes?
- Immediately after delivery for changes that do not require design work — copy improvements, form field reordering, error message revisions, button placement adjustments. Redesign-requiring fixes need the redesign phase to be completed first, which adds two to four weeks to the timeline.
Technical
- Do you need access to the live product or is a staging environment sufficient?
- A staging environment with representative data is preferred for the heuristic evaluation — it allows evaluation of all states including error conditions and edge cases without affecting live users. For user sessions, we typically use the live product or a high-fidelity prototype depending on what is available.
- What analytics tools do you review during an audit?
- We review Google Analytics 4, Mixpanel, Hotjar, FullStory, or PostHog depending on what the client has instrumented. Funnel drop-off reports, heatmaps, and session recordings are the most valuable inputs. If analytics are not instrumented, we flag that as a finding in itself and recommend what to instrument before the next design cycle.
- How do you handle audits of mobile apps versus web products?
- Mobile audits include physical device testing as a required component — app-specific usability issues often only surface on real hardware. We evaluate against iOS HIG and Material Design 3 conventions in addition to general usability heuristics. Mobile audits take the same general timeline as web audits but include a platform compliance evaluation pass.
- Can you audit an internal enterprise tool as well as a consumer product?
- Yes — enterprise and internal tool audits are a significant portion of our audit work. The heuristic framework and user session approach are the same; the participant profile differs. For internal tools, we recruit from the actual employee population that uses the tool, not external consumer panels.
Engagement & process
- How much access do you need to run an audit?
- We need read-only access to the live or staging product, access to analytics with funnel data, and Hotjar or session recording access if available. For user sessions we need either participant access or assistance recruiting from your user base. We do not need access to source code or administrative back-end systems.
- What happens to the issue log after the redesign is complete?
- The full issue log remains available as a design backlog. Issues below the top priority threshold in the first redesign pass are documented with sufficient context for your internal team to address them in subsequent sprints. We recommend scheduling a follow-up engagement to address the secondary tier of issues after the primary fixes have been validated.
- Can you redesign flows without rebuilding them from scratch visually?
- Yes — and this is often the right approach. Many UX improvements are structural rather than visual: changing form field order, improving empty states, adjusting button hierarchy, adding inline validation. We scope redesign to the minimum visual change required to address the diagnosed problem, and we flag separately what would require a more significant visual rebuild.
- How do you handle redesign when there are brand guidelines we must follow?
- Brand guidelines are an input constraint, not an obstacle. The goal of the redesign is to fix usability problems within the brand. If a brand guideline is actively causing a usability problem — for example, a brand colour that fails accessibility contrast requirements — we flag it in the audit findings and recommend an exception process for resolving the conflict.
How do you decide which UX problems to fix first?
We use a severity matrix that rates every finding by three factors: frequency (how often users encounter the problem), impact (how badly it blocks task completion), and fix effort (how difficult the problem is to address in the existing tech stack). High-frequency, high-impact problems that are technically straightforward to fix are always prioritised first. We also consider business impact — a checkout problem with a direct effect on revenue ranks above an onboarding problem affecting a small percentage of users. Origin Softwares presents every issue ranked on this matrix so clients can make an informed prioritisation decision with full context.
Related services
Custom Software Development
Audit findings on custom software products produce a design-backlog that can be addressed in subsequent development sprints.
Web Development
Web development projects can incorporate redesigned flows from an audit engagement, rebuilding only the specific screens and components identified as high-priority.
Mobile App Development
Mobile app audit findings on platform convention violations and gesture interaction problems are best resolved in a dedicated mobile development sprint.
Digital Marketing
Conversion flow improvements identified in a UX audit directly improve the ROI of digital marketing spend by increasing the proportion of paid traffic that converts.
E-Commerce Development
E-commerce UX audits focus on the flows with the most direct revenue impact — product pages, add-to-cart, and checkout — and redesign recommendations are scoped to those critical paths.
Not sure where to start?
Request a UX audit scoping call and get a proposed audit plan within two business days.
Get a free consultation