Reviews

I think the refresh reads much calmer, and the sign-up path is genuinely easier to follow now.

Choosing accessibility as the through-line is smart — it gives the case study a spine. Larger type, roomier inputs, and the stronger contrast on the primary action ("Continue with email") all land well and read as WCAG-aware decisions rather than cosmetic ones.

My one structural worry is the concept itself. An accessibility toggle framed as a separate mode quietly says accessibility is opt-in, while the whole point of inclusive design is that it ships by default. Rather than a switch, I'd argue for one interface that works for everyone from the first frame.

I'm with Priya on scope: the flow needs more of the story around it — the next registration step, validation states, what an error actually looks like. The optical alignment between the mark and the "Log in" control could use another pass too. Small, but portfolio work is judged on exactly those.

The base is solid and the subject is well chosen. Extend the flow with more screens and show how the accessibility thinking survives the whole journey — that's what will lift this from a nice exercise to a convincing case study. Keep pushing.

The typographic rhythm is the strongest part here — the 4pt baseline holds across every screen, and I can tell the spacing was decided rather than nudged.

What's missing is the middle of the story. Show me the messy states: a rejected password, a slow network, a returning user who half-finished. Two or three of those would prove the system bends without breaking, and they're usually what a hiring panel probes first.