I've sat in too many reviews where someone asked, "Wait, are we even cleared to run this in Canada?"

Nobody knew. Someone had to dig through a contract.

That question became Bounds, a self-initiated concept for making usage rights visible on the creative work itself.

But bringing the information onto the image creates another design problem.

Every restriction matters. That doesn't mean every restriction should demand equal attention. When everything is red, nothing is.

A screen full of alerts can make it harder to know where to start. I've watched a teammate lose ten minutes figuring out which of six red flags actually mattered.

And if color is the only difference between two statuses, some people won't be able to tell them apart.

The question for me was:

Am I designing this to look urgent, or to help someone know what to do next?

That's the distinction behind three decisions in Bounds:

• The highest-risk issue gets the strongest emphasis.

• Every status gets a symbol and plain words, never color alone.

• Each view has one clear primary action.

The other issues are still visible. They just aren't all competing for first place.

The before-and-after shows it best. Same image, same restrictions. What changes is where your attention goes.

That's what interests me about accessibility: how it shapes the hierarchy, language, and decisions that make an interface useful.

It belongs in the first design decisions, not just the final review.

See the full Bounds case study →