Interview scorecard template

Accessibility Specialist interview scorecard

Evaluate Accessibility Specialist candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so check the audits and remediations they have done, plus command of WCAG and hands-on assistive technology use. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationaccessibilityassistive technologyinclusive designwcag
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate audits with real assistive technology, not just automated scanners, and knows WCAG criteria by their intent. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains each requirement through the barrier it removes, and prioritises by user impact over conformance score. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Check the audits and remediations they have done, plus command of WCAG and hands-on assistive technology use.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Audits with real assistive technology, not just automated scanners, and knows WCAG criteria by their intent.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test whether they can explain why a criterion exists in terms of the barrier it removes for a real person.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains each requirement through the barrier it removes, and prioritises by user impact over conformance score.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Assess how they respond when a design that passes automated checks still fails a screen reader user.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Trusts real assistive-technology testing over passing scans, and can name an issue no automated tool would catch.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Judge how they get designers and developers to build accessibly rather than remediating after launch.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Shifts teams to build accessibly up front, with evidence of defects falling rather than audits repeating.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Accessibility Specialist

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

  1. 01

    What is your previous experience in the field of accessibility, and which products or sites have you audited?

  2. 02

    Which adaptive technologies do you use hands on, and how do you test with them? Walk us through one session with a screen reader or voice recognition tool.

  3. 03

    Share an example of an accessibility issue you discovered and how you got it fixed.

  4. 04

    What specific accessibility certifications or formal training do you have?

  5. 05

    What is your understanding of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and how do you explain a criterion to someone who has never read them?

See the complete Accessibility Specialist 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