Interview scorecard template

Emoji Design Lead interview scorecard

Evaluate Emoji Design Lead candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review their shipped emoji sets: ask for glyph families they designed end to end, legibility at 18px, skin tone and ZWJ variants, and which platform. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationcolrv1glyph designunicode proposalszwj sequences
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows named emoji sets shipped in a live font or OS release, with small-size renders and variant coverage visible. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains grid, shared shape libraries and colour palette rules that hold a large set visually coherent across platforms. 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

Review their shipped emoji sets: ask for glyph families they designed end to end, legibility at 18px, skin tone and ZWJ variants, and which platform or font shipped them.

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 named emoji sets shipped in a live font or OS release, with small-size renders and variant coverage visible.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe vector craft: Bezier hygiene, consistent stroke weight and optical scaling across a 3,000 glyph set, plus COLRv1, sbix or CBDT export and Illustrator to font pipeline.

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 grid, shared shape libraries and colour palette rules that hold a large set visually coherent across platforms.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Ask how they handled Unicode Emoji Subcommittee feedback, localisation objections, or cultural review notes that forced a redesign, and what changed between draft and final glyph.

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

Describes specific redesigns driven by ESC, legal or cultural review, showing before and after reasoning rather than defensiveness.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Test intake work: writing or reviewing Unicode encoding proposals, CLDR keyword and annotation sets, and scoping requests from product, marketing or accessibility teams.

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 vague requests into concrete glyph specs, cites a proposal or CLDR contribution, and flags ambiguity early.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Emoji Design Lead

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 your previous work in emoji or icon design?

  2. 02

    How would you approach designing a series with a consistent style?

  3. 03

    Describe a challenging design project and how you worked through it.

  4. 04

    How do you ensure designs stay readable at different sizes?

  5. 05

    What techniques do you use to make designs distinguishable from one another?

See the complete Emoji Design Lead 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