UX/UI Design Services and Dedicated Designers for Web and Mobile Apps
A dedicated UX/UI designer is a full-time seat on your product team who owns user research, interaction design, the design system, and the interface surfaces through which people see, approve and correct what the software does on its own. Mixcore Studio has built web and mobile products for more than 8 years, with a team of around 20 and over 320 projects delivered. The designer works inside your delivery team, in your tools and your standups, rather than handing files across a boundary.
The role has changed more in the last two years than in the previous ten. Producing screens became cheap. Deciding which screens should exist, and proving they work for real users, did not.
The designer is now one of four or five seats, not an optional add-on
The delivery unit we are asked to join keeps getting smaller. A product squad is now commonly four or five people — a product manager, one or two engineers, and a single designer expected to cover research, interaction design and the design system — rather than a dozen with a specialist for each discipline. That is a restructuring around where human judgement is needed rather than a headcount cut, and it changes what a designer has to be able to do.
The consequence for anyone buying a dedicated team is direct. On a team of five, there is no spare seat for someone who only draws screens. One designer is expected to carry discovery, interaction design, the design system, and the AI-facing parts of the interface, and to be present when engineering decides what is actually buildable this sprint.
Designing interfaces where the software acts on its own
Most products we are asked to design in 2026 contain at least one feature that generates, suggests or acts. That moves a set of decisions out of engineering and into design, because the user's ability to trust and control the feature is an interface property.
- Autonomy boundaries made visible — the interface has to show which actions the system takes by itself and which wait for a person, using the same boundaries written into the contract rather than a different set invented in the design file.
- Approval and reversibility — a clear approve, edit or reject step before anything is written to a system of record, and a working undo for anything that was.
- Provenance and uncertainty — showing where an answer came from and how confident the system is, without pretending to a precision the model does not have.
- Escalation to a human — a visible, quick route out of the automated path, because the moment a user cannot find it is the moment they stop trusting the whole product.
- Failure states designed first — the empty, partial, wrong and timed-out states are where AI features actually live, and they are the states most design packages still skip.
The trust problem is measurable. The Stack Overflow 2025 Developer Survey of roughly 49,000 respondents found 84% of developers using or planning to use AI tools, but only 3% who highly trust the output while 46% actively distrust its accuracy, and 66% naming "AI solutions that are almost right, but not quite" as their top frustration. Those are developers, the most technically sympathetic audience an AI feature will ever meet. A general consumer audience will be less forgiving, not more.
AI disclosure became a design deliverable in August 2026
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, the AI Omnibus, was published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 and entered into force on 27 July 2026. It moved the AI Act's Annex III high-risk obligations from 2 August 2026 to 2 December 2027, and Annex I product-embedded obligations to 2 August 2028. It did not move Article 50. The transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026, with a grace period to 2 December 2026 for generative systems already on the market before that date.
A great deal of vendor material still assumes the high-risk deadline landed this month and that transparency was the flexible part. The opposite happened, and this is a deferral rather than a repeal, so anything already in flight still has to land. What Article 50 asks for shows up in the design file, not only in the legal annex.
- AI-interaction disclosure — the user is told they are dealing with an AI system, placed where it is read rather than buried in a settings page.
- Labelling of synthetic media — generated or manipulated image, audio and video content carries a visible label in the interface.
- Machine-readable marking — the marking itself is an engineering job in the asset and delivery pipeline. Design's part is to make sure the visible label and the embedded marking say the same thing.
As a Vietnamese studio we work under two regimes at once. Vietnam's Law on Artificial Intelligence took effect on 1 March 2026 with a four-tier risk classification, and its Article 11 requires that users be told when they are interacting with an AI system and that AI-generated audio, image and video carry machine-readable identification markers. The two regimes are close enough that one disclosure pattern usually satisfies both, but they are not identical and we design against whichever is stricter for your market.
The design system is what stops AI-written front-end code drifting
Google's 2025 DORA research reports that 90% of the technologists it surveyed now use AI at work. It found AI adoption associated with improved delivery throughput and, at the same time, with a negative relationship to delivery stability, and framed AI as an amplifier of existing organisational strength or dysfunction.
Applied to interface work, that is not abstract. A team with tokens, documented components and a review habit gets faster. A team without one produces inconsistency faster. A generated component that looks approximately right is exactly the failure mode nobody catches in review.
- Tokens as the contract — colour, type, spacing and radius defined once as Figma variables and exported in the W3C design tokens format, so the design file and the codebase read from the same source.
- Components with documented states — built in Storybook or the equivalent for your stack, including the disabled, loading, error and empty states, so a generator has something correct to copy.
- Accessibility built into the component, not audited afterwards — WCAG 2.2 AA targets for contrast, focus order, target size and keyboard operation designed in at the component level.
- Review of generated UI — front-end output is reviewed against the system rather than against a screenshot, which is the only check that scales when volume goes up.
What we deliver, and what we stopped selling
Several things this page used to advertise are no longer worth buying, and we would rather say so than quietly keep charging for them.
- Deliverable-count packages are gone — a quote priced by number of wireframes, mockups and a clickable prototype describes production volume, which is the part that got cheap. We scope by decisions made and interfaces shipped instead.
- Static redline handoff is gone — replaced by tokens and component contracts that a human developer and a code generator can both consume without interpretation.
- Separate researcher, UI and interaction seats are gone on small teams — on a four or five person team that split creates handover cost rather than depth. It still makes sense above roughly fifteen people.
- Keyword-driven "SEO design" is gone — putting design terminology into a page never moved a ranking. Layout stability, interaction latency and a clear document structure do contribute, and those are engineering-adjacent design decisions we make deliberately.
What replaces them is a shipped interface, a system your own team can extend, research evidence you can re-read, and a documented set of AI disclosure and approval patterns. On commercial shape, outcome-based contracting keeps coming up in procurement, and buyers increasingly ask a fair question about AI-assisted work: am I paying human rates for machine output? Our answer is that the rate covers judgement and verification, not screen production, and we are willing to structure part of an engagement against outcomes you already measure, such as task completion, support contact rate or activation.
When a dedicated designer is the wrong choice
A full-time embedded designer is the wrong shape more often than a design agency will admit.
- One-off, fixed scope — a single marketing site, a rebrand, or a defined set of screens is cheaper and finishes sooner as a fixed-scope project. A dedicated seat only pays back when the product keeps changing.
- No route to your users — if nobody can introduce a designer to real users or share real usage data, you will get well-reasoned opinions rather than research. Fix the access first, or accept that the work is design by assumption and price it accordingly.
- Mature system, strong product manager — if you already have a stable design system and a product manager who can direct interface decisions, you may need a few review days a month, not a full seat. We will say so during scoping rather than after signature.
- You want speed claims — we do not quote a productivity multiple for AI-assisted design. METR's 2025 randomised trial found experienced developers took 19% longer with AI tools while believing they were about 20% faster. METR now marks that result as out of date: its February 2026 follow-up measured point estimates that had flipped to a speedup, but with confidence intervals still crossing zero, and METR describes its own data as only very weak evidence for the size of any increase. Those studies measured developers rather than designers and do not transfer directly, but they are a good reason to distrust anyone quoting a clean multiplier in either direction.
Our expertise
- Product discovery and user research
- Interaction and interface design
- Design systems and tokens
- AI interaction and approval flows
- Accessibility to WCAG 2.2 AA
- Prototyping and usability testing
Frequently asked questions
Do we still need a UX/UI designer if AI can generate screens?
Generation removed the cheapest part of the job, which was producing layouts, and left the expensive parts untouched. Deciding what the product should do, learning what users actually struggle with, keeping one consistent system across dozens of surfaces, and designing the approval and failure states of automated features are all still human decisions. If your need is genuinely a handful of static screens against an existing system, say so and we will scope a short fixed engagement rather than a dedicated seat.
What does a dedicated UX/UI designer deliver in a typical month?
In a normal month the output is a mix of discovery work, shipped interface designs for the current sprint, additions to the design system, and usability sessions on what shipped last month. We deliberately avoid quoting a monthly count of screens, because that metric rewards volume over decisions and is the wrong thing to optimise now that volume is cheap. The measurable commitment is a defined scope of interfaces reaching production per sprint alongside the research evidence behind them.
How do you handle EU AI Act Article 50 disclosure in the interface?
Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026, with a grace period to 2 December 2026 for generative systems already on the market, and it was not deferred by the AI Omnibus, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, which moved only the Annex III and Annex I high-risk dates. In practice we design a disclosure pattern that tells the user they are interacting with an AI system at the point of interaction, a visible label for generated or manipulated media, and we make sure that label matches the machine-readable marking the engineering team embeds. We design against the requirement, but we are engineers rather than counsel and your legal team should confirm the classification of your system.
How do you keep design consistent when AI writes much of the front-end code?
By making the design system machine-readable and the review explicit. Tokens live as Figma variables exported in the W3C design tokens format, components carry documented states in Storybook, and generated front-end code is reviewed against those components rather than against a screenshot. With a large and growing share of front-end code drafted by AI, an unwritten style convention is worthless as a control.
What happens to our design work if the designer leaves the team?
This is a fair question to ask a Vietnam-based supplier, because turnover and wage competition in the regional IT market are real, and the tenure and salary-inflation figures quoted in vendor guides are not independently audited. Our answer is structural rather than reassuring: your organisation owns the Figma files and the token source, design decisions are written down with their reasoning, and the system is documented well enough that a replacement reads it rather than reinventing it. We also agree notice and overlap terms at signature rather than at handover.
Contacts
We are always happy to talk with you.
Feel free to contact us in any suitable way
Request a quote
Let's discuss your project!
Please, provide us with a brief description of what you
already have and what you are going to achieve.
Mail us contact@brainiacminds.com