Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Complete two end-to-end UX case studies
6–10 weeks per case study (can be run in parallel)
A UX portfolio is only credible when it shows the full process from a real problem to a tested solution. Complete two case studies that each contain all four stages: user research (at least 3 interviews or a comparable observation method), synthesis (identified patterns or insights driving the design), wireframes or prototypes iterated from feedback, and usability testing with at least 3 participants. The case studies should address different problem types to demonstrate range. Real projects (volunteer work, student briefs, redesign challenges) are all valid; speculative redesigns of famous apps without user research do not meet the standard.
Proof required
Share a document or link containing both case studies, each with: (1) a one-paragraph problem framing, (2) a summary of at least 3 user research sessions including recruitment method and key findings, (3) at least one iteration showing how feedback changed the design, and (4) a usability test summary showing what worked and what you changed as a result.
What gets checked
- Both case studies include real user research — 'I interviewed 3 users' with no details about who, how they were recruited, or what they said does not demonstrate a research process
- At least one clear iteration is documented in each case study: a design decision that changed because of feedback, with before and after shown
- Usability test results include at least one finding that was negative or surprising — a test where everything worked perfectly is usually a test where the tasks were too easy or the participants were too polite
Common mistakes
- Designing first and adding 'research' after the fact — the research should visibly influence the design; a case study where the final design looks exactly like the initial wireframe suggests the research was post-hoc
- Choosing only portfolio-friendly problems — picking a problem you already know the answer to produces a case study that looks polished but demonstrates no real discovery
- Stopping at wireframes without testing — an untested design is not a completed case study; usability testing is the minimum evidence that the design was evaluated against real users
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to walk through one case study aloud — explain the problem, who the users were, what surprised them in research, and what changed between first and final design; this quickly reveals whether the case study was genuinely discovered or retrospectively constructed
- Ask specifically about a negative usability finding: what broke, who found it, and how the design changed as a result — a case study where nothing went wrong during testing was not tested rigorously
- Check both case studies cover different problem types — two 'redesign a food delivery app' projects do not demonstrate range
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Publish a portfolio with at least three case studies
2–3 weeks to structure and publish after completing M1 case studies
A portfolio that only exists locally is not a portfolio. Publish your work on a platform accessible via a public URL, formatted so a hiring manager or client can move through each case study in under 10 minutes. At minimum: an overview page with three case studies, each with a clear problem statement, the key research finding that drove the design, the final solution, and the outcome or next step. The portfolio should demonstrate your thinking process, not just your visual output — process is what separates a UX portfolio from a visual design portfolio.
Proof required
Share the public URL of your published portfolio. The portfolio must contain at least three case studies accessible from the overview page, each with a visible problem statement, at least one user research insight shown, and a final design solution. Include a brief note on one aspect of the portfolio you received feedback on and changed before publishing.
What gets checked
- Portfolio is publicly accessible without login — a PDF shared via email does not meet the standard; a URL that opens in any browser does
- Three case studies are present and each contains a research-grounded insight that visibly drove a design decision — not just beautiful mockups with no process shown
- At least one piece of feedback from a peer or mentor resulted in a change before publishing — a portfolio submitted with no iteration is unlikely to be at its best quality
Common mistakes
- Publishing a portfolio that is only a visual showcase — screens without process, research, or iteration do not demonstrate UX capability to a practitioner reviewer
- Using a template and only changing colors — reviewers see hundreds of portfolios; a portfolio that is clearly a template with minimal customisation signals low effort
- Including a third speculative redesign case study without user research to reach the three-case-study count — if a third case study lacks research, the portfolio has two real case studies, not three
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Open the portfolio URL in a private browser window — confirm it loads without login and all three case studies are accessible
- Review each case study for visible research: at minimum there should be a user quote, an insight from research, or a persona grounded in real data — a case study with only wireframes and final screens is a design portfolio, not a UX portfolio
- Ask what feedback the submitter received and what they changed before publishing — someone who published without seeking feedback should explain why
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Present your portfolio to a UX practitioner and document the critique
1–2 weeks to arrange and conduct the review, plus revision time
A portfolio that has only been reviewed by its maker has not been tested. Present your portfolio to a UX practitioner — a working UX designer, design lead, or design researcher with verifiable industry experience — and document their critique. Walk through one case study in full and answer at least three follow-up questions from the reviewer. The documented critique, including the reviewer's name and role, becomes the proof artifact. This is the Studio Critique Rule Level 3 applied to portfolio work: the reviewer must have real industry experience, not just design familiarity.
Proof required
Share: (1) the public portfolio URL, (2) the name and job title of the reviewer with a link to their LinkedIn or company profile, (3) a written summary of the critique noting at least three specific feedback points, and (4) one change you made to the portfolio or a case study in response to the critique.
What gets checked
- Reviewer is a working UX practitioner with a verifiable identity — a LinkedIn or company profile confirming UX industry experience; a fellow student or friend without UX work history does not meet the standard
- Three specific feedback points are documented — not 'the reviewer liked it overall' but named observations about specific aspects of the portfolio or case studies
- One concrete change was made in response to the critique and is documented — showing what changed and why demonstrates the critique was taken seriously
Common mistakes
- Choosing a reviewer who is too close: a friend who happens to work in tech, a mentor who has never reviewed UX portfolios professionally — the reviewer should have experience evaluating UX work for hiring or client purposes
- Presenting the portfolio passively and waiting for feedback — the submitter should walk through one case study in full and ask specific questions; passive presentation produces generic feedback
- Documenting only positive feedback — a genuine critique always includes something to improve; a summary with no critical points suggests the reviewer was not pushed to give honest feedback
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask for the reviewer's full name and job title and search for their profile — a working UX practitioner should have a verifiable LinkedIn or company page; if they do not, ask the submitter to explain the reviewer's background
- Ask the submitter to explain one piece of critical feedback they received and what they changed — this is the clearest test of whether the session was a genuine critique or a courtesy review
- Ask whether the reviewer asked any follow-up questions during the presentation — a real critique session is a dialogue; passive listening followed by polite comments is not a qualifying critique
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of