Interview scorecard template

Front-End Accessibility Expert interview scorecard

Evaluate Front-End Accessibility Expert candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical proficiency, systems and trade-offs, evidence and rigour, and collaboration and communication. Technical proficiency leads at 35%, so check depth on WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, ARIA authoring practices, focus management, roving tabindex, and hands-on testing with NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver and keyboard-only flows. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software dataariaaxe corescreen reader testingwcag
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate cites specific success criteria by number, explains native HTML over ARIA, and describes real screen reader behaviour differences across NVDA, JAWS and VoiceOver. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate argues trade-offs with cost, risk and user impact; fixes at the design system layer rather than patching individual pages repeatedly. 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 proficiency

35% weight

Check depth on WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria, ARIA authoring practices, focus management, roving tabindex, and hands-on testing with NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver and keyboard-only flows.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the languages, frameworks, and data tools the role actually uses
  • Understands correctness, performance, and failure modes, not just syntax
  • Has opinions on testing and can justify them
  • Reads and reasons about code they did not write

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work independently; fundamentals are missing.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak fundamentals; output needs heavy review.

3
Satisfactory

Competent for the role; needs guidance on complex or unfamiliar work.

4
Very Good

Strong practitioner; handles hard problems with little guidance.

5
Excellent

Cites specific success criteria by number, explains native HTML over ARIA, and describes real screen reader behaviour differences across NVDA, JAWS and VoiceOver.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Probe how they weigh remediation against redesign in a component library, when to ship a documented known issue in a VPAT, and how they handle third-party widgets.

Evidence to listen for

  • Reasons about scale, latency, cost, and failure before writing code
  • Names the trade-off they chose and what they gave up
  • Understands the data lifecycle end to end
  • Anticipates what breaks at ten times the volume

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No thinking beyond the immediate task; no awareness of scale or failure.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited architectural awareness; struggles with design decisions.

3
Satisfactory

Works within an existing design; makes sound local decisions.

4
Very Good

Designs for scale and maintainability; articulates trade-offs clearly.

5
Excellent

Argues trade-offs with cost, risk and user impact; fixes at the design system layer rather than patching individual pages repeatedly.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Assess how they verify fixes: axe-core or Pa11y in CI, manual audit scripts, assistive technology test matrices, and usability sessions with disabled participants.

Evidence to listen for

  • Validates results rather than trusting output
  • Knows how their work is measured and what a bad result looks like
  • Can describe a time their own analysis or model was wrong and how they caught it
  • Careful about data quality, leakage, and silent failure

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Ships unvalidated work; no notion of how correctness is checked.

2
Needs Improvement

Validates superficially; misses obvious quality or leakage issues.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable checks in place; rigour drops under time pressure.

4
Very Good

Validates thoroughly; can name a real error they caught in their own work.

5
Excellent

Treats automated scans as partial coverage, pairs them with manual and AT testing, and quotes defect counts or audit findings closed.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Look for evidence of upskilling designers and developers, writing accessibility acceptance criteria, and negotiating with product owners or legal on Section 508 or EN 301 549 exposure.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical work to non-technical stakeholders
  • Gives and takes code or peer review constructively
  • Documents enough that the work survives their absence
  • Aligns with team process rather than working around it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work in a team; resistant to feedback.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication issues create rework; lone-wolf tendencies.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate team member; documentation and review participation are light.

4
Very Good

Communicates well; reliable reviewer and collaborator.

5
Excellent

Describes turning audit findings into prioritised tickets developers accepted, plus training or documentation that reduced repeat issues across teams.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Front-End Accessibility Expert

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

  1. 01

    Can you discuss a project where you improved accessibility during front-end development?

  2. 02

    What is your level of experience with HTML, CSS and JavaScript for accessible content?

  3. 03

    Can you discuss a particular challenge you faced in making a site accessible and how you solved it?

  4. 04

    Do you have a clear understanding of semantic markup and how it relates to accessibility?

  5. 05

    What knowledge do you have about accessibility attributes and their proper use?

See the complete Front-End Accessibility Expert 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