Interview scorecard template

Email Graphic Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Email Graphic Designer candidates across four weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so look for live email work: campaign templates, promotional sends, lifecycle flows. Ask for sent-email screenshots or Litmus previews across Gmail, Outlook and iOS dark mode. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationemail designfigmahtml emailklaviyo
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows real sends with hero modules, dark mode variants and mobile renders, plus the brands and send volumes behind them. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains layout choices against inbox constraints: web-safe font stacks, image-off fallbacks, tap-target sizing and file weight budgets. 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

Look for live email work: campaign templates, promotional sends, lifecycle flows. Ask for sent-email screenshots or Litmus previews across Gmail, Outlook and iOS dark mode.

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

Shows real sends with hero modules, dark mode variants and mobile renders, plus the brands and send volumes behind them.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe typography, hierarchy and modular grid decisions inside 600px constraints; ask how they handle image weight, alt text styling and bulletproof CTA buttons.

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 layout choices against inbox constraints: web-safe font stacks, image-off fallbacks, tap-target sizing and file weight budgets.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Assess how they respond to A/B results and stakeholder edits: subject line pairings, hero swaps, CTA colour tests, and reworking a template after low click rates.

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

Cites specific iterations driven by open, click or heatmap data rather than taste, and accepts brand or legal edits without friction.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Check intake and handoff habits: campaign briefs, send calendars, working with copywriters, and delivering assets into Klaviyo, Braze, Mailchimp or ESP module libraries.

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

Translates a brief and deadline into named deliverables, flags asset gaps early, and ships build-ready files matching the ESP template system.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Email Graphic Designer

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

  1. 01

    Can you provide examples of email campaigns you have designed?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your experience with email marketing campaigns?

  3. 03

    Have you designed a campaign for a specific audience, and how did you approach it?

  4. 04

    What is your level of proficiency with the main design applications?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience creating animated graphics for email?

See the complete Email Graphic Designer 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