I designed the system as a shared skeleton with room for personality. Every game keeps the same shell: the Challenge, Rules, and Leaders tabs, the bottom navigation, the entry and payout patterns, the credits footer. What changes is the surface. Each game type gets its own color and its own way of showing odds, so Split The Pot reads differently from Stocks even though they sit on the same frame.

​

That came from a clear constraint. Games are customizable for any event and any audience, so the structure had to stay stable while the content shifted underneath it. I defined the color roles, the type scale, the icon set, and the component states so a new game could ship inside the existing pattern instead of starting from scratch.

This was my first design system, and it holds up where it counts. The structure is sound. Clear color roles, a light and dark split, a numbered scale, and a full state model. Those are the parts that are hard to get right, and they still work.

​

What I'd change is accessibility. Several of the core pairings fall short of current contrast standards. The green primary with white text is the clearest example. The 87/60/38 emphasis tiers follow the Material pattern of the time, but they break down on colored surfaces.

​

I'd keep the skeleton and retune the values. Darker text-bearing greens, stronger contrast on the caution and error states, and emphasis levels checked against WCAG rather than set by opacity alone. The system was built to scale. It just needs to scale to a standard I hold now that I didn't then.