SUSHARA / 2026CASE STUDY
DIGIDENTITY — ACCOUNT RECOVERY
CASE STUDY · DIGITAL IDENTITY

Giving users back control of their digital identity

I redesigned Digidentity's account recovery — the flow people hit at their most vulnerable moment with the product — from a fragmented, web-only experience full of dead ends into a self-serve native mobile journey that works across 8 languages.

Context — Digidentity is an eIDAS Qualified Trust Service Provider on the EU Trusted List, whose platform has created 25M+ verified identities across 180+ nationalities.

Role
Lead Product Designer
Sole designer
Timeline
Early 2025 → ongoing
phased delivery
Platform
iOS + Android
8 languages
Impact
5 scenarios → 1 native flow
FIG. 01 / FINAL
Add hero image — polished device-framed mockup of the final native recovery flow

The Discovery

The Problem

Users who lost their device or got locked out faced a recovery experience that was web-only, fragmented, and full of dead ends — pushing most of them to the service desk. For a product handling legally binding credentials like eHerkenning and qualified signatures, a broken recovery flow doesn't just frustrate users; it erodes trust in the entire platform.

The result: recovery was neither self-serve nor scalable. The service desk had become the de facto recovery mechanism.

The opportunity — How might we…
  • let users recover entirely within the mobile app, without bouncing to a web platform mid-flow?
  • merge "recovery" and "transfer" when users don't understand or care about the distinction?
  • balance non-negotiable security requirements with a self-serve experience that keeps users out of the service desk queue?
  • design one flow that adapts to 5 different scenarios without overwhelming the user?

Who I Designed For

Individuals and business users across EU markets who hold legally binding credentials — eHerkenning, qualified electronic signatures, the EU Digital Identity Wallet — that they rely on for business operations, legal signatures, and government interactions. For these users a locked account isn't an inconvenience; it can block them from signing contracts, filing taxes, or accessing regulated services.

Constraints I Designed Within

01Users with multiple smart cards at the highest assurance level must re-upload evidence and re-create authenticators — a non-negotiable security requirement.
02Certain failure states must route to the service desk by design. That's a security control, not a bug to fix.
03PIN attempt counts are deliberately never disclosed to users.
04All copy has to work across 8 languages — meaning short, modular, and translation-safe.

Strategy & Logic

What the Audit Revealed

The existing experience spanned four separate flows: web account creation, web password recovery, web recovery with no device access, and a parallel mobile journey. The longest path required 20+ screens and bounced users between web and mobile via QR codes. The forgot-password flow had dead ends where users with a wrong or forgotten email simply had nowhere to go.

FIG. 02 — Add image
"Before" flow diagram: the 4 fragmented flows with dead ends and web↔mobile handoffs annotated.

A Phased Approach

Rather than make users wait months for a big-bang release, I sequenced the work to match development capacity — delivering an immediate improvement while the right long-term solution was built properly.

Phase 01 · Early 2025

Stabilise the web flow

Fixed broken links, removed dead ends, and streamlined sequencing on the existing web recovery. A lighter lift for engineering that gave users an immediate improvement.

Phase 02 · Late 2025 →

Reimagine for native mobile

Moved recovery to a fully native mobile flow — no more web handoffs — and consolidated "Recovery" and "Transfer" into a single entry point as part of the move.

The Pivot

The hardest part wasn't the visible flow — it was the rules underneath it. The distinction between when biometric verification was required versus when an ID-document upload was sufficient only became clear after several rounds of iteration with the security team.

That single clarification reshaped the whole solution — it's what split recovery into three distinct happy paths.

Once I understood the assurance rules properly, the design stopped trying to force one universal flow and instead routed each user down the correct path for their credential level. The lesson I carry forward: in regulated products, pin down the compliance logic before designing the screens, not during.

FIG. 03 — Add image
Before vs. After: the old single overloaded flow vs. the routed three-happy-path model, annotated with what changed and why.

The Execution

The Final Flow

A fully native recovery experience covering three happy paths plus the corner cases that matter most: invitation + recovery, sign/login + recovery (handled inline via push notification, returning users to their original task), and suspected fraud — where the user sees a clear "unusual activity" explanation and is guided through identity verification and a new PIN, with no dead ends.

Safety Nets

Users who attempt recovery too many times are redirected to the service desk with a clear message — an intentional escalation, not a dead end. Failure states were redesigned to explain what happened and offer a next step, rather than showing an error icon and stopping.

FIG. 04 — Add image
High-res annotated screens of the 3 happy paths + key corner-case screens (invitation, sign+recovery, fraud).

Design System & Accessibility

Built on Digidentity's native component library for consistency across the app — the recovery screens share the same visual language as the rest of the product. Every screen has a clear hierarchy so users always know what's happening, why, and what to do next, and all copy was written short and modular to localise cleanly across 8 languages.

The Conclusion

Results

The shift from a 20+ screen web flow with multiple platform handoffs to a streamlined native experience — with full coverage of happy paths, corner cases, and security edge cases — fundamentally changes how Digidentity handles recovery. It's expected to reduce service-desk dependency and lift self-serve completion, giving users a trustworthy experience in their most vulnerable moment with the product.

Note to self: swap in real service-desk ticket reduction / completion numbers here once the data team confirms — that's what makes this section bulletproof.

Reflections

I'd involve engineering earlier in the mobile phase — some technical constraints surfaced late. And I'd lock the smart-card assurance and authorisation requirements with the security team up front; getting that clarity earlier would have saved significant rework and reached the right solution faster.

Collaborators

A cross-functional effort across the team — I credit each partner by role:

PM · prioritisation & phasing Engineering · feasibility & rollout Security & Compliance · recovery rules Service Desk · ticket drivers QA · scenario & edge-case validation
Next case →

An upfront account switcher

Read next case →
↳ AMSTERDAM · 52.37° N RHEA SUSHARA · CASE STUDY