A medical device site, built end to end
- WebflowCertifiedpartner review, this site among the three submittedVerify
- Lighthouse100accessibility, best practices, SEO
A device nobody has seen, explained to people who have to trust it
There was no site to fix. There was a device: automated ultraviolet disinfection for reusable ophthalmic equipment. A category most buyers cannot picture, and a claim that has to survive scrutiny.
That combination decides the whole build. A product like this is not sold by adjectives. It is sold by showing the thing working, in order, at a pace the reader controls, and by a site that behaves impeccably while doing it. A medical claim on a sloppy page reads as a sloppy claim.
What we did, in order
Built the explanation before the pages
What the device does, in what order, and where a reader stops believing. The page structure came out of that sequence rather than out of a template.
Designed and built in the same room
No handoff between design and development, so a layout was tested in the browser the week it was drawn. That is why the numbers below are what they are: they were never a cleanup phase at the end.
The same page at 390px Held it to the standard we would be reviewed against
We submitted this site to Webflow as part of our Certified Partner application. Their rubric covers design quality, layout and structure, site optimisation and accessibility, and it is graded by hand. Building to that from the start is cheaper than retrofitting to it.
Three forks, none of them left to the end
Start from a page template, or from the order in which the device has to be explained
From the explanation, with the page structure cut to its sequence
Most buyers cannot picture this category, so what does the convincing is the order the device is shown working in, at a pace the reader sets. A template settles that order before anyone has worked out what the sequence should be, which puts the container ahead of the argument. Here the sequence was settled first and the pages were cut to it, which is why they demonstrate rather than describe.
Draw it first and hand it over to be built, or design and build in the same room
Same room, no handoff, and the layout met a browser in its first week
The other road is the ordinary one: draw every page, hand the file over, and find out what a browser does with it afterwards. Here the browser answered while the drawing was still cheap to change, which is what the numbers below rest on: the accessibility and performance figures are the build itself rather than a cleanup phase taken over it at the end.
Build it the usual way and tidy it before submitting, or build to the review rubric from day one
To the rubric from day one, and submitted this site as one of the three
Webflow grades that rubric by hand and across four axes at once, so there is no single number to tune the week before submitting, and a tidy-up pass has to convince a person reading the build. Building to it from the start was cheaper than retrofitting to it, and it means the reviewers graded this site as it was built rather than as it was dressed for them.
Screens
Captured from the live siteHome The problem, stated How it works The patient portal Peer review and the advisory board
What it scores, and who checked
- 100accessibilityNot a pass mark. The full score, on a site making a medical claim.
- 90+performance on mobileWhere the reader actually is.
- 1 of 3sites in our Webflow submissionGraded by hand against their partner rubric, as part of the application that certified us.
Lighthouse
- Accessibility100
- Best Practices100
- SEO100
- Performance90
Validation
100%Job Success
Top Rated
Webflow Certified Partner
2,200+hours on the platform
300+projects delivered
