Critiques

I think the refresh reads much calmer — the onboarding actually has a sense of pace now instead of three decisions on one screen.

Choosing legibility as the through-line is a strong call for a portfolio piece. Bumping the type ramp, hit areas, and field heights all pull in the same direction, and the contrast fix on the primary action ("Continue with email") is genuinely noticeable and lands within WCAG.

My one real concern is conceptual. Shipping legibility as a separate mode implies it's optional — an extra someone has to find. Most inclusive-design guidance says it belongs in the default state. Instead of a switch, I'd design the one interface that already works for everyone and delete the toggle.

I'm with Priya that the project needs more of the surrounding flow (next registration steps, validation, error handling). The optical alignment between the mark and the "Log in" button drifts by a few pixels too. Small things, but they're what a hiring reviewer lingers on.

The foundation is solid and the topic is well chosen. Widen the flow with more screens and show how legibility carries through the whole path — that's what will move this from a nice screen to a real case study. Keep going.

Two screens is a promising start, but right now I can only judge the surface. Show me the states between them: what a mistyped address looks like, what happens on a slow connection, what the user sees after they confirm.

Also worth documenting the before. A side-by-side of the original screen with the measured contrast ratios would make the improvement arguable rather than asserted, and it's the kind of evidence that reads well in an interview.