UX Portfolio

Purpose

Throughout the semester, you produced a full range of UX design process artifacts: briefs, research materials, problem framing, journey maps, information architecture, sketches, wireframes, visual systems, prototypes, and validation findings.

This final assignment asks you to transform that semester-long work into a strategic UX portfolio case study. It is a curated professional argument about how you think as a designer.

Your portfolio should demonstrate:

• how you framed a problem

• how research and structure shaped your decisions

• how your design changed through iteration

• how you navigated trade-offs, ambiguity, and constraints

• how you present your work clearly to an outside audience

In other words, your final portfolio should show not only what you made, but why it became what it is.

Core Assignment Frame

Your final portfolio must balance two goals:

1. A professional-facing case study

This is the polished, curated version of your project. It should be scannable, coherent, selective, and persuasive.

2. A complete course record

This is the appendix or supporting section that preserves the full semester’s deliverables for completeness.

Strongest submissions will clearly differentiate these two layers.

The main case study should help a reviewer quickly understand your role, your project, your reasoning, and your outcomes.

The appendix should preserve the full academic record without overwhelming the main story.

Accepted Formats

Choose one of the following:

• Figma presentation

• PDF portfolio

• Simple portfolio website

Your final submission must have:

• clear visual hierarchy

• readable typography

• strong spacing and sectioning

• consistent labeling

• scannable writing

• working links if applicable

A table of contents is optional, but recommended.

Required Structure

Part I — Portfolio Front Door (25 points)

This is the entry point to your portfolio. It should help someone understand who you are and where to begin.

Include:

• your name

• a clear role statement or emerging professional identity

• project title

• course and semester

• optional short tagline

• visible access to the case study

• visible access to resume/contact if included in your format

What this section should do

A reviewer should be able to tell, within a few seconds:

• what kind of designer you are becoming

• what this project is about

• where to go next

Avoid

• vague statements like “I create meaningful experiences”

• cluttered introductions

• making the reader search for your actual work

Part II — Case Study Overview / Executive Summary (20 points)

Write a concise overview of the project in approximately 250–400 words.

Address:

• the problem or opportunity

• the target user(s)

• the design context

• your role

• the core insight or direction

• the value of the final solution

This section should read like a high-level framing device, not a dense essay.

Strong summaries do this:

• orient the reader quickly

• define the project clearly

• establish relevance

• set up the logic of the case study

Part III — Context, Problem Framing, and Research Signal (35 points)

This section should show how the project was initially understood and how research shaped the direction of the work.

Include selected evidence such as:

• brief or project framing

• problem statement

• target users

• key research questions

• one selected persona or condensed user profile

• one selected empathy-map insight set or summary

• other early framing artifacts only if they clarify decision-making

Important

Do not include every research artifact just because it exists.Only include the parts that most strongly influenced the project’s direction.

This section should help the reader understand:

• what problem mattered

• for whom it mattered

• what you learned early

• how that learning shaped what came next

Part IV — Structure, Ideation, and Early Decision-Making (25 points)

This section should show how your project moved from problem framing into possible directions.

Include selected evidence such as:

• journey map or service-context thinking if relevant

• information architecture or user-flow thinking

• concept sketches or early concepts

• explanation of alternative directions considered

• rationale for the direction you chose

Focus on:

• how you translated research into structure

• how ideas were narrowed

• what you ruled out and why

• where the project began to take shape

This is not just a sketch gallery. It should show the transition from insight to design logic.

Part V — Design Development and the Messy Middle (40 points)

This is one of the most important sections. Show how the design evolved through:

• low-fidelity wireframes

• structural revisions

• selected high-fidelity screens

• prototype logic

• component/system thinking where relevant

• key pivots, trade-offs, or changes in direction

You do not need to show every screen.You do need to show the moments that reveal real thinking.

Include:

• 3–6 representative screens or frames

• annotations or captions

• examples of meaningful change

• at least one moment where your first idea was revised, challenged, or improved

This section should make visible:

• the messy middle

• iteration

• alternative approaches

• changing assumptions

• trade-offs between clarity, scope, and usability

A linear “first I researched, then I designed, then I finished” narrative is too shallow.This section should prove that design development involved judgment.

Part VI — Validation, Outcomes, and Iteration (30 points)

Show how you evaluated the design and what changed because of that evaluation. Include:

• brief description of validation method(s)

• 2–3 major findings

• before/after moments or annotated comparisons

• explanation of why those changes mattered

Outcomes may include:

• usability improvements

• reduced confusion or friction

• stronger structure

• more effective interaction flow

• clearer alignment with user needs

If you do not have shipped business metrics, that is fine. Focus on what changed, what improved, and what your testing or critique helped you learn.

Part VII — Reflection and Product Story (15 points)

End with a reflective synthesis of the project. Address:

• how your understanding evolved

• what key research insight most influenced the design

• what major turning points shaped the final outcome

• what constraints or trade-offs mattered

• what you would improve next

• what this project says about you as a designer

This section should not repeat the whole project. Its job is to show maturity, self-awareness, and judgment.

Part VIII — Appendix / Complete Course Record (10 points)

Include all semester deliverables in a clearly labeled appendix or supporting section. This section is graded for completeness and organization, not polish.

Include all major course artifacts, such as:

• kickoff brief

• personas / empathy maps

• problem framing materials

• strategic definition package

• journey map

• information architecture / user flows

• concept sketches

• low-fidelity wireframes

• high-fidelity mockups

• component library

• interactive prototype

• testing / refinement materials

Screenshots are acceptable. Links are acceptable if clearly labeled and accessible. If using Figma, the appendix must be included within the same file.

What Makes a Strong Portfolio Submission

A strong submission does not try to prove that you did everything. It proves that you can identify what mattered. Your portfolio should show:

• clarity — the project is easy to understand

• curation — only meaningful evidence is foregrounded

• decision logic — the reader can see why the design became what it became

• iteration — the work changed in response to insight or testing

• credibility — your role, limits, and choices are honestly presented

• scannability — headings, spacing, and writing help the reader move

• reflection — you can evaluate your own work, not just display it

Grading Breakdown (200 points)

Submission Requirements

Submit one of the following:

• one PDF

• one Figma link

• one portfolio website link

If submitting a link, it must be publicly viewable.

All required sections, including the appendix, must be included in the same submission.