Interface choices are argued as preferences and later experienced as load times, tap targets and support calls. We build for the conditions your teams actually work in: regional connectivity, ageing devices, glare and gloves.
Three things decide interface quality on this kind of work, and none of them is fashion. Performance under the network conditions staff really have, accessibility for people using keyboard or screen reader, and a component vocabulary consistent enough that a new screen can be assembled without inventing new patterns. Where a client must meet accessibility obligations, we build to WCAG 2.1 AA as the baseline. No single project uses everything listed here.
Default for interfaces with real application behaviour: local state, optimistic writes, complex forms. Its ecosystem is unmatched, which is also the risk, since several libraries solve one problem and leave maintainers guessing which was intended.
Used where routing, server rendering and caching belong together, especially portals needing fast first paint. The constraint is hosting: it expects a platform supporting its runtime, which narrows deployment choices later.
Chosen where a code base already uses it or a small team wants less ceremony. The trade-off is a narrower local hiring pool than React, and we raise that before committing anyone to the decision.
Mandatory beyond prototypes. It catches interface mismatches before a browser sees them and keeps refactoring feasible years later. The cost is configuration discipline and occasional type work that tempts people to disable checks.
Default styling for component interfaces, keeping decisions beside the markup and preventing a stylesheet nobody dares edit. It produces verbose templates and suits teams comfortable with utility classes.
One code base across Android and iOS where crews need consistent offline behaviour or device interaction. Rendering is quick and widgets consistent, at the cost of app size and another language to maintain.
Preferred when a team already works in React and the application mostly consumes existing interfaces. Hardware modules still need native knowledge, which surprises clients expecting one skill set to cover everything.
Recommended more often than clients expect. Job capture and approvals used on company tablets work well in a browser, removing two app stores from the delivery path. Device hardware access is where it stops.
Build tooling chosen for fast cold starts and predictable output. A development server should start in seconds, because slow feedback quietly reduces how often work is verified before review.
Component catalogues show what already exists and let us review empty, error and loading states in isolation. Clients inherit fewer duplicated controls, and design review happens against real components.
End-to-end tests run against a review environment on every release candidate, covering login, create, approve and export. Slower and more brittle than unit tests, so they cover critical paths rather than everything.
Handoff works when tokens and spacing are agreed before build starts. Where states are undefined we produce them and record decisions in the repository, so later changes stay consistent.
The most expensive interface mistakes are architectural, not visual, and they surface twelve months later as maintenance cost.
Choose it when users work in the interface continuously: dashboards, scheduling boards, complex multi-step entry. Avoid it for read-mostly content, anything needing search visibility, and sites used on thin regional connectivity where every kilobyte matters.
Choose them for internal administration, forms-heavy processes and anything maintained for years by people who are not front-end specialists. Avoid them where interactions need offline queuing or rich local state, which then gets rebuilt badly in script.
Choose it for work performed where no network exists, or where cameras, barcode scanners, bluetooth instruments and background location matter. Avoid it when staff already carry company tablets and the work is done within a browser session.
Choose plain templating and progressive enhancement for small utilities, reports and screens your own staff may need to adjust. Avoid it for interfaces that must hold substantial state, since hand-rolled state management becomes the framework nobody documented.
These are refusals we have made more than once, offered here because it saves everyone time later.
We do not maintain separate Android and iOS applications unless offline capture or device hardware genuinely demands it. Two store accounts, review cycles and a widening device matrix are permanent costs, and most of our clients are better served by one well-built web application.
An administration screen listing records with a filter does not need a full client-side framework. A heavier stack means a build pipeline, a dependency surface and specialists to maintain it, for an interface used by six people.
We decline projects whose real objective is a new look and whose stated scope is a rewrite. Reskinning an existing screen set delivers most of the perceived benefit for a fraction of the risk, and we will say so even when the rebuild would bill higher.
We do not claim support for hardware we have not held. Before go-live we test on the actual models in service, including the oldest, because an interface that fails on a three-year-old tablet fails during a shift rather than during a demo.
Lessons that arrived as support tickets before becoming part of how we build.
A charting library added for one screen can add hundreds of kilobytes without anyone noticing. The pipeline fails the build when the compressed bundle exceeds an agreed figure, which forces a conversation while it is still cheap to have.
Interfaces used outdoors need generous targets, high contrast and local queuing for work captured out of coverage. We test on the oldest device in service under simulated poor signal rather than on a developer laptop over office wifi.
Modal components routinely break tab order and screen reader flow. Every overlay gets focus management, an escape route and a labelled purpose, verified with a screen reader rather than assumed from the markup.
After deployment, browsers holding cached copies of the previous build produce errors nobody can reproduce. Assets are served with hashed filenames and explicit caching headers so a release always reaches its users intact.
Analytics and chat widgets add latency and quietly transmit visitor data. Each addition is reviewed for its effect on load time and privacy position before inclusion, and many requests are declined for that reason alone.
We review existing front ends for performance, accessibility and maintenance cost before recommending changes.
