Interview scorecard template

Experiential Wayfinding Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Experiential Wayfinding Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review actual wayfinding programs: airports, hospitals, campuses, transit. Look for sign location plans, message schedules, sign family typologies, and photos of installed work, not just concept. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationada complianceenvironmental graphicssignage systemswayfinding
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows two or more built programs with location plans, message schedules and installed photography, naming their exact scope on each. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate justifies cap heights, contrast ratios and mounting heights against code, and explains why a substrate suited the environment. 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 actual wayfinding programs: airports, hospitals, campuses, transit. Look for sign location plans, message schedules, sign family typologies, and photos of installed work, not just concept boards.

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 two or more built programs with location plans, message schedules and installed photography, naming their exact scope on each.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe typography at distance, viewing cone and legibility calculations, arrow and pictogram conventions, ADA and ISO 7001 requirements, substrate and finish choices, plus fabrication drawing detail.

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

Justifies cap heights, contrast ratios and mounting heights against code, and explains why a substrate suited the environment.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled client review cycles, code officials, and post-install audits where users still got lost; ask about wayfinding testing or intercept walkthroughs.

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 a program revised after observed user failures, citing what changed in nomenclature, decision points or sign hierarchy.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess collaboration with architects, fabricators and facilities teams: shop drawing review, coordination with base building drawings, budget per sign type, phased rollout schedules.

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

Speaks fluently about fabricator RFIs, submittal review and holding a nomenclature standard while meeting budget and construction sequencing.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Experiential Wayfinding Designer

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 experience with large wayfinding projects?

  2. 02

    Can you give an example of a system that clearly improved how people navigate?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a challenging wayfinding project and how you handled it?

  4. 04

    What is your process for site analysis on a new project?

  5. 05

    Can you give an example of using data to inform a wayfinding design?

See the complete Experiential Wayfinding 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