A second pair of eyes on the work you can no longer see clearly.
Two senior designers review your product, screens or portfolio — separately, without seeing each other’s notes — then reconcile into one honest, prioritised list of fixes. We don’t take the redesign work afterwards, so there is nothing to inflate.
Button fill measures 1.9:1 against its own label. In daylight this reads as disabled.
Bmed
Promo field outranks the pay button. People leave to hunt for a code they never had.
Reconciled
Both kept. Contrast first — it is a token change, and it is the only one of the two that can be shipped this afternoon.
01 · Why
Nobody inside your company can give you an outside opinion.
It isn’t a competence problem. Familiarity hides real problems, and politeness keeps the rest unsaid.
Blind spot 01
Feedback that already agrees with you
Your team defends the choices that got you here, usually without realising it.
Blind spot 02
No benchmark outside the building
Internal reviews compare against last quarter, not against a first-time user or a competitor.
Blind spot 03
Blind spots that quietly cost money
Friction nobody flags is friction users never report. They just leave.
Most audits are the opening move in a redesign pitch.
An agency that hopes to rebuild your product has a quiet reason to find more wrong with it. We don’t take redesign work after a review — the engagement ends at the report — so the length of the findings list has nothing riding on it.
02 · Audiences
Who books this
Companies & agencies
A product in market, and numbers that aren't where they should be.
Conversion and usability friction, mapped to what it costs you.
Junior & mid-level designers
Shipped work, and no senior eye left to check it against.
The reasoning behind each fix, not just the fix.
Fresh grads & entry level
Applications going out, nothing coming back.
What a hiring designer notices in the first six seconds.
03 · Process
Two reviewers. Separately. Then reconciled.
Four steps, no discovery theatre. From the intro call to the walkthrough, most reviews finish inside two working days.
01
Intro call
30 min
We learn the product, its users, and what you already suspect is wrong.
02
Two senior designers review
The core
Both review independently, neither sees the other's notes, then the two sets are reconciled into one list. A single reviewer has blind spots too.
Your screensOne verdict
BothFindings raised twice, independently, are the ones we tell you to fix first.
03
The report
FigJam · Figma · PDF
Every finding ranked by severity, paired with a recommended fix and the reasoning behind it. Yours to keep and hand to your team as-is.
04
Walkthrough
Call or 15–20 min Loom
We talk it through, and you can push back on anything. We'd rather you argue than nod along.
On sharing
We sometimes publish anonymised findings as sample material. Tick keep my review privateat booking and none of it leaves the report — we’ll sign an NDA for product reviews.
04 · Pasarnia
The checkout asks for commitment three times before it ever shows a total.
Traffic is fine and carts are filling. Something between the cart and the payment screen is losing people, and the team disagrees about what.
The products below are invented and the findings written for them. We have no real case studies published yet — when clients allow it, these get replaced by anonymised real ones.
Pasarnia
Grocery delivery · Malaysia
9:41
←CheckoutStep 2 of 3
Deliver to
12-3A, Jalan Kerinchi Kiri 4 59200 Kuala Lumpur
Create your account
More options ›
Delivery slot
Wed 12 Feb, 09:00–11:00▾
42 slots
3 itemsRM58 · 12.00 MYR saved
Promo code
Apply
Continue to payment
123456
Checkout — step 2 of 3
Tier
End-to-end product review
Turnaround
2 working days
Scope
Cart → checkout → payment, iOS and Android web
BriefTraffic is fine and carts are filling. Something between the cart and the payment screen is losing people, and the team disagrees about what.
01Bothhigh
The order total never appears before payment
Delivery fee, service fee and the slot surcharge are all applied on step 3. A shopper who budgeted RM60 first sees RM73.40 with their card already out.
FixShow a live running total in the sticky bar from step 1, itemised on tap. Nothing else on this list moves the number as much.
02Bhigh
Guest checkout is hidden under “More options”
Account creation is presented as the only path. The guest route exists but sits behind a tertiary link that reads as a settings menu.
FixLead with guest checkout and offer the account at the confirmation screen, once the purchase is already done.
03Ahigh
Primary button fails contrast on the sticky bar
The mint fill against white text measures 1.9:1. In daylight on a phone it reads as a disabled control, which is precisely the moment it needs to read as the way forward.
FixDarken the fill until it clears 4.5:1, or invert to dark-on-mint. This is a token change, not a redesign.
04Bmed
The promo field outranks the thing you came to do
A full-width, focused promo input sits directly above the primary action. Shoppers without a code read it as a step they are failing; shoppers with one leave to go find it.
FixCollapse it to a single line of text under the total, expanding on tap.
+ 19 further findings in the full report.
Sample — not a real client
Tally
23findings
■ 6 high
■ 11 med
■ 6 low
14 of 23 were raised independently by both reviewers.
Where they disagreed
The 42-option slot picker
AScored High — called it the second-biggest drop risk after the total.
BScored Low — argued regular shoppers pick the same slot every week.
Reconciled to Med. B's point holds for returning shoppers, A's holds for first orders, and first orders are the ones being lost.
Account creation
ARead it as a conversion problem.
BRead it as a trust problem — the form asks for a phone number with no stated reason.
Kept as one High finding with both readings attached, because the fix differs depending on which is true and the team can test that cheaply.
Reconciled verdict
The checkout asks for commitment three times before it ever shows a total.
Fix the order of the checkout before touching anything visual. Both reviewers independently put the hidden total first; every other finding is smaller than that one.
BriefSupport tickets are climbing and dispatchers keep asking for training. The team thinks it is an onboarding problem.
01Bothhigh
The default screen is not the screen anyone works in
Dispatchers spend the day resolving failed deliveries. That queue is three clicks deep; the landing screen is a KPI dashboard whose numbers are read weekly, by someone else.
FixLand on the exception queue. Move the KPI dashboard to its own route for the people who actually use it.
02Ahigh
Fourteen columns, none sortable, no sticky header
At the second screenful the column headings are gone, so dispatchers count cells across to work out which field they are reading.
FixSticky header, sort on the four fields that carry decisions, and let the rest live behind a column picker.
03Bhigh
Delivery status is carried by colour alone
Amber and red dots are the only difference between “late” and “failed”. Those two states have completely different responses, and roughly one dispatcher in twelve cannot reliably tell them apart.
FixAdd a short text state beside the dot. Colour becomes reinforcement rather than the whole message.
04Amed
Filters reset on every navigation
Opening a job and coming back drops the filter set. Dispatchers rebuild the same four filters dozens of times a shift.
FixPut filter state in the URL. It also makes shift handover a pasted link instead of a spoken list.
+ 27 further findings in the full report.
Sample — not a real client
Tally
31findings
■ 8 high
■ 14 med
■ 9 low
19 of 31 were raised independently by both reviewers.
Where they disagreed
The KPI dashboard
AWanted it deleted outright.
BWanted it kept — ops managers do read it, just not daily.
Kept, moved off the landing route. The finding is about what loads first, not about whether the dashboard deserves to exist.
Reconciled verdict
It is not an onboarding problem. The job dispatchers do all day is three clicks behind a dashboard they never look at.
Make the exception queue the landing screen and the ticket volume changes on its own. Training is being asked to compensate for information architecture.
The craft is not the problem. Every case study ends at the final screen and never says what happened next.
Forty applications, two replies. The work looks good and nobody will say what is wrong with it.
A junior product designer's portfolio
Job-seeking designer
portfolio.site / onboarding-rework
Reworking the onboarding
A study in colour, type and motion for a fintech onboarding flow.
Discover›Define›Ideate›Design›Test
Sign-up, v3
Sign-up, v3
The final direction simplified the flow into three steps and introduced a progress indicator, which tested well internally with the team.
Next project ›
12345
Case study — “Reworking the onboarding”
Tier
Portfolio review
Turnaround
1 working day
Scope
Three case studies, reviewed as a hiring designer would read them
BriefForty applications, two replies. The work looks good and nobody will say what is wrong with it.
01Bothhigh
No case study says what happened after launch
All three end on a final-design shot. A hiring designer reads that as work that was never shipped, or shipped and never measured — and cannot tell which.
FixOne honest closing line per study. “Shipped in March; support tickets about step 2 dropped by roughly half” beats a hero shot. If it never shipped, say so and say why.
02Bhigh
The first screenful is a mood board
Colour swatches and type specimens occupy the opening viewport. The problem statement is below the fold in every study.
FixOpen with the problem, who had it, and your role, in three lines. Move the visual exploration to the middle, where it supports rather than delays.
03Amed
The process diagram is the same in all three studies
Discover → Define → Ideate → Design → Test, unchanged, with no evidence any of it happened. It reads as coursework rather than as an account of the project.
FixDelete the diagram. Replace it with the one decision you got wrong first and what changed your mind — that is what interviewers actually probe.
04Amed
Eleven screens shown, two explained
The screen grid is doing the work of a portfolio, but nine of the eleven carry no caption, so the reader cannot tell which decisions were yours.
FixCut to four screens. Caption each with the decision it represents.
+ 13 further findings in the full report.
Sample — not a real client
Tally
17findings
■ 4 high
■ 8 med
■ 5 low
9 of 17 were raised independently by both reviewers.
Where they disagreed
The mood board opening
AScored Med — thought it read as visual confidence.
BScored High — argued a hiring designer gives a case study six seconds and this spends all six.
Reconciled to High. A agreed after re-reading the portfolio on the six-second budget rather than in full.
Reconciled verdict
The craft is not the problem. Every case study ends at the final screen and never says what happened next.
You are being read for six seconds and those six seconds are spent on a mood board. Lead with the problem and close with the outcome, and the same work starts landing interviews.
Something not covered here? Email us and you’ll get a straight answer, not a calendar link.
Process & timing
How fast will I get the review back?
1 working day for portfolio and per-screen reviews. 2 working days for end-to-end product reviews. The clock starts after the intro call.
Who actually does the review?
Two senior designers, reviewing independently, then reconciling findings. One reviewer has blind spots too.
What do I need to prepare before we start?
Product review: a live URL or staging access, plus which flows matter most. Portfolio review: your portfolio link and the role you're applying for. Per-screen review: the screen, plus what it's meant to do.
Trust & confidentiality
How is this different from a design audit from an agency?
Most agencies audit as the opening move in a redesign pitch. We don't take redesign work, so we have no incentive to inflate problems.
Will my product or portfolio be shared publicly?
Only if you allow it. Opt out at booking and it stays private — we'll sign an NDA for product reviews.
Do you handle confidential or pre-launch products?
Yes — often the best time for an outside review. Tell us on the intro call and we'll work under NDA.
What if I disagree with the findings?
We'd rather you push back than nod along. The final call exists for exactly that.
Pricing & the report
What do I actually receive?
A report in FigJam, Figma or PDF — every finding ranked by severity, paired with a solution. Product reviews also include a call or Loom walkthrough.
Why is the pricing this low?
These are introductory rates while we build up public case studies for this service. Whatever we charge later, the rate you book at is the rate you keep.
Who is behind SecondEyes.Design?
SecondEyes.Design is a service by Rekakod, a Malaysian product design studio. We work with clients globally and reviews are delivered in English.