Helen Li is a product designer with a background in cognitive science and psychology, and that background comes through in how she approaches and presents her work.

Helen and I worked together for a while on her portfolio. She has made substantial progress, from the way she explains her projects to how she introduces herself as a designer.

Two things deserve a closer look: her compact project summaries and the positioning that ties her work together. Let’s jump into those, along with two areas where the presentation could become stronger.

Helen gives visitors more than one way into her work.

Alongside the full case studies, she offers a smaller Preview or a more substantial Quick View. The Quick View condenses a project into its essentials: a short overview, the main results, and the features she contributed, supported by screenshots or recordings.

That is a thoughtful response to how portfolios get reviewed.

Someone arriving at a portfolio may be comparing several candidates, looking for a particular kind of experience, or trying to decide which project deserves a closer read. Helen gives them enough information to make that decision without asking them to commit to a full case study first.

They can see the visual direction, understand the main pieces of work, and learn something about the impact in one compact surface.

A conventional project card rarely gives a visitor that much. A full case study takes longer to explore. Helen has created a useful step between the two.

Her longer case studies also hold up. They build on the summaries with more context around research, industry evidence, and iterations. Descriptive headings carry the main information, and the pages remain reasonably concise.

This matters because the Quick View could otherwise become a workaround for an exhausting case study. Helen has improved both.

A summary should help someone choose where to go deeper. The full story still needs to respect their time once they arrive.

I would consider making the problem statement slightly more explicit in some of the compact views. At the moment, it can be inferred from the overview and the way the features are described. A short sentence explaining the original problem would make the summary more complete without adding much length.

There is also a small question around discoverability.

“Quick View” makes sense once someone has opened it. Before that, a visitor might click directly into the case study because they do not know what the alternative contains.

Helen could test whether clearer labeling or a more prominent Quick View action helps. Another possibility would be to make the summary the first stop, with the full case study available from there.

I would want to see how visitors use the current version before committing to that change. Some will prefer to go directly into the detail, and adding a compulsory step could make their experience slower.

The underlying idea is strong either way.

I had not previously suggested this format to someone, but seeing Helen’s execution gives me a reason to consider it. It could be particularly useful when a project needs more context than a homepage card can provide, while the full case study contains depth that some visitors will want and others will not.

Helen’s introduction has changed considerably since I first saw the portfolio.

Earlier, it told visitors that she was a designer and pointed them toward her projects. Her current opening gives them a clearer idea of how she thinks: she designs products around the way people think, then connects that approach to her background in cognitive science and psychology.

That connection gives her education a purpose within the portfolio.

Hiring managers can begin to understand what Helen might bring to a team before opening a project. Her background suggests an interest in behavior, decision-making, and the relationship between people and the systems they use.

The case studies then give that introduction something to stand on.

Her explanations are clear and grounded in evidence. Research feeds into product and design decisions, and the work shows attention to how a system should fit the people using it.

This is where positioning earns its value. An opening statement creates an expectation, and the projects help a visitor assess whether that expectation holds up.

Helen’s introduction feels consistent with the work underneath it.

It also leaves room for a range of opportunities. She has worked across consumer and B2B products, and her opening describes an approach that can apply to both.

I see a particularly promising fit with B2B work. The systems thinking in her projects, along with her attention to workflows and how people make decisions, could be valuable in products where users need to manage complex information or coordinate several tasks.

That is my reading of the portfolio, rather than a reason to remove her consumer experience or declare it irrelevant. Her existing work gives her room to explore both.

This is a useful example for designers who worry that positioning will force them into a narrow category.

Helen does not need to claim expertise in one tiny corner of design. She gives visitors a meaningful starting point for understanding her, grounded in experience she already has.

A hiring manager looking for that approach can recognize it early and then look for evidence in the projects. Other requirements will still need to be assessed, but Helen has made an important part of her profile easier to understand.

Her background has become part of the story she tells about the work, rather than a qualification visitors have to interpret for themselves.

Helen uses video throughout the portfolio, which is a considerable improvement over the large collections of static screens I saw in earlier versions.

Recordings let visitors see a product in use and understand how one state leads to another. They also make the homepage feel more engaging.

The next opportunity is in how those recordings are directed.

In one preview showing mobile and desktop surfaces, the view zooms in and out several times over a short period. Zoom can help someone inspect an important detail, but repeated changes in scale make it harder to settle into what is being shown.

A viewer needs enough time to understand why the camera moved and what they should look at once it arrives.

I would use fewer zooms, place them deliberately, and hold each view long enough for its purpose to become clear.

Pacing matters inside the product too.

In the freight example, a moving truck attracts attention while a list beside it updates quickly. The truck establishes what is happening, but once that is understood, the changing list deserves more attention.

Helen could begin with the wider view, show the truck setting off, and then move toward the list. Slowing that part of the sequence would give each update a chance to register.

At the moment, someone can notice the movement without absorbing the information that makes it useful.

Another recording moves through several zoom levels around a mobile mockup. Parts of the device become cropped, and some interactions cut away before I have had time to take them in.

A wider recording canvas would give Helen more room to control the framing. She could establish the device, move closer to the relevant area, and keep enough surrounding context visible for the viewer to stay oriented.

These decisions are easier to make before recording.

I would write a short storyboard for each clip: where it begins, which interaction matters, what changes on screen, and where the viewer should look next. A few notes are enough. The purpose is to know what the recording needs to communicate before collecting the footage.

For homepage previews, I tend to aim for roughly five to twenty seconds, depending on the complexity of the interaction. A small detail may need less time; a longer flow may need more.

Helen’s clips do not strike me as too short overall. The issue is how much happens within them, and how quickly the viewer is asked to move from one detail to another.

Because these are often prototypes, she can adjust the timing before recording again. Important states can remain visible longer, transitions can slow down, and a sequence can be split into separate clips if it contains too much.

She has already chosen a strong format for presenting the work. More deliberate framing and pacing would make those videos easier to understand.

Helen has more experimental work than the Play page initially suggests.

That page contains a Spline piece and a draggable interaction with animation. Both are enjoyable additions, but the collection feels small for a separate destination.

Elsewhere, her Labs section contains more product-oriented experiments, including a recipe importer and another concept created in Figma.

I missed those for a while during the review.

That creates two connected problems: one section feels sparse, while work that could give it more substance sits somewhere less obvious.

I would combine them.

The 3D piece, interaction experiment, and product prototypes are different kinds of work, but they share a reason for being there. They show what Helen explores outside the projects that need full case studies.

Visitors do not need every experiment in that space to have the same format.

A small interaction can sit beside a product prototype. A 3D exploration can sit beside something built to solve an everyday problem. Short descriptions can explain what each piece explores and which tools Helen used.

Bringing them together would give someone a fuller picture of her curiosity in one place.

The section’s name matters less than how clearly visitors can find and understand it. Play, Labs, or another label can work, provided the content makes the purpose apparent.

Helen already links toward her experimental work from the homepage. I would make that invitation more visual.

One preview could give visitors a reason to click. A short reel showing several pieces could also work, with quick glimpses suited to introducing the collection.

That has a different purpose from the product walkthroughs. The homepage invitation needs to show what someone might discover; each individual experiment can then have enough space to be explored on its own page.

I would keep the strongest case studies as the main focus and give this combined collection one clear place around them.

Helen does not need to produce more experiments to make the current work easier to appreciate. There is already enough material to create a more useful destination by bringing together what is now split across two places.

Helen has made substantial progress, and the portfolio now gives visitors a much clearer picture of her work and how she approaches it.

The Quick Views are an addition I would like to see more designers explore. They offer enough substance to help someone decide where to spend their time, while the full case studies remain available for a closer look.

Her positioning also feels grounded. Cognitive science and psychology have a visible connection to the decisions in her projects, and I can see that approach being valuable in B2B environments as well as parts of her consumer work.

I would spend the next round of refinement on video direction and the organization of her experiments. Both would help visitors absorb more of what she has already made.

Having seen earlier versions, I know how much work Helen has put into getting here. The portfolio is now at a point where I want people to open it and spend some time with the projects.

Still struggling to get your portfolio off the ground?

Don’t want to spend weeks learning yet another tool? Framer is my top recommendation for building your portfolio — fast, clean, and without the usual headaches.

If you’re just starting out (or even if you’re not), I think Framer is a perfect fit. Here’s why:

And that’s just scratching the surface. I wrote more about why I recommend Framer here—but honestly, the best way is to try it for yourself.

Affiliate disclaimer: I only recommend tools I personally believe in. Some links in this post are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you choose to purchase — at no extra cost to you.

Do you want your own portfolio reviewed in-depth with a 30-minute advice-packed video review? Or do you require mentoring to figure out a proper strategy for your job search?

I got you!