Design that carries the business, not just the aesthetic

Yes. Identity, visual language and written guidelines are delivered as a standalone package that your own team or another agency can apply, with the source files included so nothing depends on us afterwards. We do ask what it will be built in, because a system designed with no implementation in mind tends not to survive one: colour choices that fail contrast requirements, type scales that collapse on mobile, and logo variants that do not exist at the sizes actually needed are all found at build time rather than in the presentation. Designing with the build in view costs nothing extra at this stage and avoids the round of quiet compromises that otherwise happens later, once the brand is already in use.

Source files, exported assets in every format you will actually need, and written guidelines covering colour, typography, spacing, logo usage and tone of voice - including the rules for what not to do, which is the half most guidelines omit and the half that gets broken first. For interface work you also receive a component specification with states and breakpoints: hover, focus, disabled, loading, error and empty, plus desktop and mobile. Everything is handed over and remains yours, whether or not you continue working with us. The guidelines are what keep the brand from fragmenting six months later, when a new supplier interprets the colours their own way and nobody has a document to point at.

Often, yes, and it is usually the better answer. If there is real equity in the current identity - customers recognise it, it appears on signage, packaging and vehicles - we evolve it rather than replace it: tightening the system, correcting contrast ratios that fail accessibility requirements, producing the logo variants that were never made, and writing down the rules that only ever existed in one designer head. A full replacement is warranted when the identity actively works against the business, when it cannot be used in the places the business now needs it, or when the positioning itself has changed. We say which of these applies after looking at where the brand is currently used, not before.

Usually two or three considered directions rather than a wall of options. Each arrives with the reasoning behind it - the positioning it expresses, the audience it addresses, and how it differs from what competitors in the category already look like - so the conversation is about which argument fits the business rather than which picture someone happens to like. Presenting twenty variations tends to produce decisions by committee taste, and the result is usually the least objectionable option rather than the most effective one. Each direction is shown applied to real surfaces the business actually uses, not on an abstract board, because a mark that works in isolation and fails on a mobile header has not been tested.

Yes - app interfaces, web products, admin panels and landing pages. The deliverable is the same shape in each case: a component system with states and behaviour specified, not a set of static screens. That distinction matters more than it sounds, because the screens that are missing from most design handovers are the ones that decide how the product feels in use - loading, error, empty state before any data exists, and what happens when a list has one item or two hundred. We specify those, along with breakpoints and interaction behaviour, so a developer is not left inventing them under time pressure. It is also why the same team can build what it designed without anything being reinterpreted at the handover.

We design to meet them: contrast ratios checked against the standard rather than eyeballed, visible focus states on every interactive element, touch targets large enough to use, and a heading hierarchy that works with a screen reader. In Israel the applicable standard is IS 5568, based on WCAG 2.0 Level AA, and we also design to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. One distinction catches a great deal of brand work: a logo is exempt from contrast requirements, while the interface built around it is not - so a pale brand colour can be entirely legitimate on the mark and entirely unusable on a button or body text. Establishing an accessible palette at the identity stage avoids rebuilding it during the site build.