Joe Parker-Rees is a London-based multidisciplinary designer working across product design, design engineering, brand, and visual design.

His portfolio brings those disciplines together through work that feels carefully considered, from complete applications to smaller interactions. There is breadth here, but also a consistent attention to how things look, behave, and fit together.

Muesli, an iOS app he designed and built himself, makes that particularly clear. Let’s take a closer look at that project, the experiments around it, and two ways Joe could make the portfolio stronger.

Muesli is one of the strongest personal-project case studies I have seen in a while.

Joe designed and built an iOS app for recording meetings and working with the notes and recordings afterward. Visitors can watch a preview to understand the experience quickly or open the full case study for more context.

Once inside, the story stays focused.

Joe explains what led him to build it, identifies the jobs it needs to support, and shows how the functionality addresses them. Recording a meeting, asking questions about the recording, and talking to notes each receive enough attention to make the experience understandable.

The app feels complete without becoming overloaded.

That is difficult to get right in a personal project. When you control the scope and have the tools to keep building, another feature can always seem like a good idea. Before long, there are many things to try and very few that feel finished.

Joe gives the selected functionality enough care to hold up on its own.

You can see that in the smaller interactions. A drawer opening receives the kind of attention that makes an application feel considered while someone uses it. His slow-motion presentation lets the viewer inspect that behavior and see the work behind it.

He also shows a shader lab built into the app.

This gives him a place to explore and refine its visual behavior. It is a useful detail to include because it reveals something about his process: Joe has built himself a tool for adjusting the experience, then used it to work toward the result he wants.

Someone hiring for design engineering is likely to recognize the value of that approach.

A finished animation shows what someone achieved. A glimpse of the tool used to refine it helps explain how deliberately they arrived there.

Joe’s broader design abilities show up too. He created the logo and visual identity alongside the application, giving Muesli a coherent character across its different parts.

The case study handles that breadth well.

It covers the goals, the functionality, selected details, the branding, and enough technical context to make the implementation meaningful. There is also room for an outlook on where the app could go.

It does not ask me to follow every step Joe took before reaching those decisions.

That editing makes the work feel assured. I understand what he built and get enough evidence to appreciate the care behind it, without having to work through an exhaustive account of the process.

I would enjoy hearing more about what it would take to release Muesli publicly. The result already looks substantial enough to make that a worthwhile conversation.

For the portfolio, though, the project does its job. It demonstrates that Joe can define a useful scope, design the experience, build it, and keep refining the details within that scope.

Joe’s playground strengthens the picture established by his main projects.

His professional work includes brand, visual design, and motion. The applications show more of his ability to design and implement interactive products.

The playground helps connect those parts of his experience.

It introduces web-based work, including a WebGL shader and a website that brings his brand and engineering interests together. That matters because the two app projects alone could leave someone with a narrower impression of where his implementation skills apply.

These experiments give the visitor more evidence to work with.

There are only a few pieces, but each has something to contribute. Some demonstrate interaction and visual detail. Others show him building in a different environment or bringing a recognizable visual style into code.

The collection feels curated.

Joe’s branding work can be expressive and varied. His design-engineering experiments often use a more restrained, monochrome treatment. That consistency helps the pieces feel connected without requiring every project in the portfolio to look the same.

He also gives selected experiments enough explanation to make them useful.

They do not need full case studies. A short account of what he made, why he tried it, and how parts of it work can be enough to reveal the thinking behind the result.

That last part stood out to me.

Building with AI can produce something impressive before its maker fully understands the implementation. Joe’s explanations suggest that he is taking time to understand the mechanisms, what the settings control, and how changing them affects the experience.

For the direction he wants to take, that is valuable evidence.

A hiring team can see the output and begin to understand how he approaches the work underneath it. Those explanations also create useful starting points for an interview, where someone can ask him to go deeper.

The playground therefore serves two purposes.

It gives visitors more to explore after the main projects, and it supports a capability that his earlier professional work does not always demonstrate as directly.

That makes it a purposeful part of the portfolio. Joe has chosen smaller pieces that help explain the designer and builder he is becoming, while giving each enough care to feel worth spending time with.

Joe told me that he is moving toward design engineering.

I could find evidence for that direction in the portfolio, but the opening did not make it as clear as it could.

His introduction says that he designs and builds brands, websites, and tools. That describes the range of his work accurately. It leaves the visitor to work out how those things connect and which part of that range he wants to lead with next.

I would make that connection more explicit.

Something as simple as “Design engineer with a deep background in brand” would give the reader a clearer starting point.

Joe may prefer a more expressive version in his own voice. The useful part is naming the direction while keeping the experience that makes his profile distinctive.

His brand background does not need to disappear for the design-engineering work to become more prominent. It can help explain the visual judgment he brings to implementation.

That relationship is already visible in places. The introduction could help visitors recognize it sooner.

A recruiter looking for a design engineer should not need to open several projects before discovering that Joe considers himself one. A hiring manager should be able to read the opening and understand what kind of evidence to look for next.

The projects can then support the claim.

There may also be opportunities where his brand and engineering abilities meet more directly, such as building tools that help a team create or maintain a visual identity.

I can see a potential fit there, but I would not choose that direction for him. From our conversation and the work, product-focused design engineering seems closer to what he wants.

The recommendation is to make that intention visible.

Joe has already done much of the harder work of demonstrating the capability. A clearer introduction would help the portfolio communicate it without depending on an explanation from him.

Joe already shows considerable restraint in the visual design.

The portfolio is minimal without feeling empty. Detail appears in places where it gives the experience character, and Muesli demonstrates that he can build a clear interface without adding unnecessary elements.

I would apply the same judgment to how the portfolio helps people find things.

There is conventional navigation, filtering, an AI chatbot about Joe, and a Command-K menu that provides another way to search or move around the site.

Each is competently executed. Together, they provide several routes toward much the same information.

For a portfolio that is already easy to navigate, I am not sure all of them earn their place.

The AI reference tucked near the bottom serves a different audience. It gives agents and AI systems a concise way to understand Joe’s background and work, and its unobtrusive placement feels appropriate.

The chatbot creates a different question: does a visitor benefit from having a conversation to retrieve information they could already find easily?

I do not have usage data that would answer that. My own inclination would be to remove the bot first.

Joe has shown plenty of evidence elsewhere that he can build interactive experiences. The chatbot does not need to remain purely as another demonstration of that ability.

The Command-K menu feels more useful to me, although I would still ask what it helps a visitor do faster.

If Joe keeps it, a clearer entry point could help people discover it. If the ordinary navigation already handles the task comfortably, it may be worth testing whether the menu needs to stay either.

This is a harder kind of editing when the feature was enjoyable to build.

You learn something, refine it, and get it working well. Removing it can feel like discarding that effort, even when the finished product would benefit from having fewer choices.

I recognize that temptation in my own work.

The shader lab inside Muesli has a clear role in helping Joe refine the application. The portfolio’s extra navigation needs an equally clear reason to remain part of the visitor’s experience.

Joe has already demonstrated that he can exercise restraint within a screen. The next step is applying it to the set of features around those screens.

I would review each one according to what it helps someone accomplish, then keep the smallest useful set. Some well-made work may belong in the playground rather than in the portfolio’s main functionality.

Joe’s portfolio demonstrates craft across product design, implementation, and brand.

Muesli shows how much a focused personal project can communicate when its functionality, interactions, and presentation have all been considered. The playground adds relevant evidence of his engineering interests without asking every experiment to become a full case study.

I would make the design-engineering direction clearer in the introduction and review the overlapping ways of navigating the site.

Neither recommendation requires him to produce more work. They are decisions about how the existing work is introduced and what the portfolio needs to help someone explore it.

I would want to hear Joe talk through the details he chose to refine, the tools he built to help himself, and how his brand background influences those choices.

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!