Front End Developer

Builds it. A designer decides what the interface should look like and how it should behave. A front-end developer turns that into working code. The markup and styling, and the interaction logic. The connection to the backend that fetches and sends real data. And the handling of everything the design never drew. That last part is most of the job. Loading states, error states, empty states, slow connections, small screens, keyboard navigation, and what happens when a name is forty characters long. Designers who also write code exist, and they are genuinely useful on small projects. On anything substantial the two are different disciplines. The handoff between them is where quality is usually won or lost. That is why it is worth specifying properly rather than assuming it will work out.

React is the most common by a wide margin, usually with TypeScript, and often inside a framework such as Next.js. Vue and Angular are both well established and both perfectly fine choices. Svelte has a smaller but genuinely real following of its own. For content-driven sites the question is often the platform rather than the framework. WordPress, Webflow, or a headless content management system feeding a custom front end. As with the backend, matching a candidate to what you already run matters far more than the merits of any framework. Rewriting a working application into a developer's preferred tool is one of the most expensive mistakes a non-technical owner can be talked into. Be suspicious of the suggestion. Ask what problem the rewrite solves that a smaller, cheaper change could not.

Directly from the design tool, not from exported images. In Figma, a developer can inspect spacing, typography, color and component states from the design itself, which removes the guesswork that screenshots create. What has to come with the file is everything a static image cannot show. Behavior at each screen size. Interactive and hover states, error and empty states, loading behavior, and the animation intent. Where those are missing, the developer will invent them, and that is where a build stops matching the design. A component library or design system makes the whole thing faster and more consistent. The last step is a review of the built result against the design. It is the step most often skipped, and its absence is visible to anyone who bothers to look closely.

As requirements, not as a pass at the end. Performance is measurable against Core Web Vitals, which cover loading, interaction responsiveness and visual stability. They affect both what users experience and how search engines assess a page. The practical work is image handling, script and bundle size, font loading, caching, and not shipping more than the page needs. Accessibility follows the same logic: semantic markup, keyboard navigation, color contrast, focus states, form labels, and alternative text. Section 508 sets out the U.S. requirements, and they are also the baseline any public sector or institutional client will ask about. Both get tested on real devices rather than assumed from a local machine. Agree them as acceptance criteria before work starts, because retrofitting either one costs several times what building it in would have.

Yes, and it is the more common request. Taking over unfamiliar code starts with reading rather than changing. Understanding the structure. Finding where the risky parts are, getting it running locally, and documenting what actually exists. Expect that to take real time before anything visible happens, and be suspicious of anyone who says otherwise. What makes it possible is access to the repository, the deployment process, the accounts, and ideally an hour with whoever built it. What makes it hard is code with no tests and no documentation, which is most inherited code. The first useful deliverable from a takeover is usually a written assessment of what is there and what it will cost to keep. Send us the repository and the access list, and we will start with that assessment.