Interview scorecard template

Accessibility Experience Auditor interview scorecard

Evaluate Accessibility Experience Auditor candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check depth on WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, ARIA authoring practices, and hands-on testing with NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, TalkBack, plus keyboard-only and zoom reflow checks. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security complianceariascreen readersvpatwcag
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate cites specific success criteria by number, explains ARIA name/role/value failures, and describes real differences between NVDA and VoiceOver behaviour. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate walks through named audits with issue counts, severity breakdowns, and conformance statements they personally signed off and defended. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Technical depth

35% weight

Check depth on WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, ARIA authoring practices, and hands-on testing with NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, TalkBack, plus keyboard-only and zoom reflow checks.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Cites specific success criteria by number, explains ARIA name/role/value failures, and describes real differences between NVDA and VoiceOver behaviour.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe actual audits shipped: sample sizes, page or component counts, VPAT and ACR documents authored, remediation reports, and any Section 508 or EN 301 549 conformance work.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Walks through named audits with issue counts, severity breakdowns, and conformance statements they personally signed off and defended.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Assess how they triage findings: distinguishing blocking barriers for screen reader users from cosmetic contrast misses, and weighing legal exposure under ADA Title III or accessible Canada rules.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Ranks defects by user impact and legal risk, and explains when a documented alternative conformant path is acceptable.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Look for evidence they drove fixes: pairing with developers on focus management, writing acceptance criteria into Jira, running design system audits, and retest verification cycles.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Shows closed-loop remediation with retest evidence, and describes teaching engineers patterns that stopped issues recurring.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Accessibility Experience Auditor

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe a project where you identified and resolved accessibility issues?

  2. 02

    What experience do you have auditing large or complex applications?

  3. 03

    What methods do you use to test accessibility in a mobile application?

  4. 04

    What role do assistive technologies play in your testing?

  5. 05

    What is your experience with automated compared with manual testing?

See the complete Accessibility Experience Auditor question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards