Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
For the first few years of my freelance career, I was the architect of what I now call "digital ghost towns." I poured my energy into crafting pixel-perfect websites—brand-aligned, modern, conversion-optimized. Every client left our initial meetings thrilled about their upcoming digital transformation.
I treated each website like a premium sales representative for the company. The messaging was sharp. The user journey was seamless. The design made competitors look outdated.
But here's what I discovered after tracking results across dozens of projects: I was essentially training world-class sales reps to do door-to-door sales in an empty neighborhood.
The problem wasn't the quality of my work—it was my entire approach. I was building static showcases when I should have been creating interactive experiences that helped clients validate their ideas before investing thousands.
Here's what you'll learn from my expensive education:
Why traditional mockups kill projects before they start
How interactive prototypes save time and money
My framework for building websites that actually get used
The tool stack that changed everything
When to choose static vs. interactive approaches
Industry Reality
What every designer has been taught
The traditional web design process follows a predictable pattern that design schools and agencies have been teaching for decades. You start with static wireframes, move to static mockups, get client approval, then hand everything off to developers who bring it to life.
This approach exists because it feels safe and organized. Clients can see exactly what they're getting. Designers can showcase their visual skills. Project managers can create neat timelines with clear milestones.
The industry loves this workflow because it mirrors traditional product development: design first, build second, test last. Most web design agencies follow this exact process:
Discovery and strategy sessions
Static wireframes and user flows
High-fidelity visual mockups
Client revisions and approvals
Development handoff and build
Design education reinforces this linear thinking. Students learn to create beautiful static comps in Photoshop or Figma, focusing on pixel perfection rather than user interaction. The assumption is that someone else will figure out how it actually works.
But here's where this conventional wisdom breaks down: static mockups can't capture the essence of web experiences. A website isn't a brochure—it's an interactive system. Yet we keep designing them like print materials and wondering why the final product feels disconnected from user needs.
The gap between static design and interactive reality creates expensive problems that don't surface until it's too late to fix them efficiently.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
My wake-up call came during a project with a B2B startup who needed a complete website revamp. They had a solid product and clear messaging, but their conversion rate was bleeding money.
Following my standard process, I created gorgeous static mockups that perfectly captured their brand vision. The client loved them. The user journey looked seamless on paper. Every stakeholder signed off enthusiastically.
Then we built it.
The first user testing session was brutal. What looked intuitive in static form felt confusing in practice. Users couldn't figure out how to navigate between sections. The contact form that seemed obvious in mockups was completely missed by real visitors. Features that appeared elegant as static elements became frustrating when people actually tried to use them.
But the real problem wasn't the usability issues—those could be fixed. The real problem was that we'd spent months and thousands of dollars building something that fundamentally didn't work, when we could have discovered these issues in days with interactive prototypes.
That's when I realized I was approaching web design backwards. I was treating websites like brochures when they're actually interactive systems. You can't design an interactive system without understanding how it behaves.
The client was frustrated. I was embarrassed. And we had to basically start over, this time building interaction into the design process from day one. It was expensive, time-consuming, and completely avoidable.
This experience forced me to question everything about my process. Why was I creating static representations of interactive experiences? Why wasn't I testing behavior before committing to expensive development? And why did every other designer seem to accept this broken workflow as normal?
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
After that painful lesson, I completely restructured my approach around interactive-first design. Instead of static mockups, I started building functional prototypes that clients and users could actually experience.
Here's the framework I developed:
Phase 1: Interactive Sketching
Instead of starting with wireframes, I begin with rough interactive prototypes using tools like Framer or even simple HTML/CSS. The goal isn't visual polish—it's understanding behavior. How does navigation feel? Where do users naturally expect to click? What interactions feel intuitive?
Phase 2: Behavioral Validation
Before any visual design happens, I test the interactive skeleton with real users. This catches fundamental usability issues when they're cheap to fix. I've learned that you can't predict interaction patterns from static designs—you have to experience them.
Phase 3: Progressive Fidelity
Once the interactions work, I gradually add visual polish while maintaining the working prototype. This means the final design is always grounded in proven behavior rather than visual assumptions.
The Tool Stack That Changed Everything:
I moved from Photoshop → Figma → Framer for most projects. Framer lets me create fully interactive prototypes that feel like real websites. For simpler projects, I sometimes build directly in Webflow or even code rough prototypes.
The key insight: interactive mockups aren't just better communication tools—they're better thinking tools. When you're forced to consider how something actually works, you make different design decisions. You think about user flow, not just visual hierarchy.
This approach eliminates the expensive translation phase between design and development. The prototype becomes the specification. Developers aren't guessing how interactions should feel—they can experience them.
Most importantly, clients understand what they're buying because they can actually use it before it's built.
Real Testing
Test behavior before aesthetics—catch expensive mistakes early
Client Buy-in
Show, don't tell—interactive demos eliminate revision cycles
Developer Clarity
Working prototypes are better specs than static files
Cost Efficiency
Fix usability issues in hours, not weeks of development time
The results were immediate and measurable. Project timelines shortened because we eliminated the expensive revision cycles that happen when static designs meet real user behavior.
Client satisfaction improved dramatically because they could experience their website before committing to development. No more surprises, no more "this doesn't feel right" feedback after launch.
Development became faster and more accurate because developers had working examples of every interaction. The "how should this work?" conversations disappeared.
Most importantly, the websites actually worked for users. When you design interaction patterns through experience rather than assumption, you create more intuitive user experiences.
The approach also opened new revenue opportunities. Clients started requesting interactive prototypes for user testing before major redesigns. Some projects became pure prototyping engagements—helping companies validate ideas before expensive development.
The time investment upfront (learning interactive design tools, changing process) paid for itself within the first few projects through reduced revisions and faster development cycles.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Here are the most important lessons from this shift:
Interaction reveals truth - You can't predict how something will feel from static designs
Prototypes are specifications - Working examples eliminate ambiguity between designers and developers
Users think in behavior, not layouts - People experience websites as systems, not as visual compositions
Early mistakes are cheap mistakes - Finding usability issues in prototype phase vs. post-launch saves thousands
Clients buy confidence, not concepts - Interactive demos eliminate the leap of faith required with static presentations
Tools shape thinking - When your primary tool is interactive, you naturally think about user experience differently
Process determines outcome - Static processes produce static thinking, interactive processes produce user-centered solutions
The biggest shift was realizing that design isn't about making things look good—it's about making things work well. Interactive mockups force you to confront the functional reality of your design decisions.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS companies, focus on:
Prototype your onboarding flow to reduce trial abandonment
Test feature interactions before development sprints
Use interactive demos for sales presentations
For your Ecommerce store
For e-commerce stores, prioritize:
Interactive checkout flows to reduce cart abandonment
Product browsing experiences that drive discovery
Mobile interaction patterns for thumb-friendly shopping