Interview scorecard template

Haptic Interface Programmer interview scorecard

Evaluate Haptic Interface Programmer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe haptic rendering depth: god-object or penalty-based contact models, 1 kHz control loops, passivity and stability, LRA versus voice-coil driver behaviour, OpenHaptics, Chai3D. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
engineering applied scienceembedded firmwareforce feedbackhapticsreal time controlunreal unity
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains stability limits of their control loop, names actuator classes worked with, and derives why a rendered wall buzzed at given stiffness. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names shipped hardware or titles, quantifies end-to-end latency achieved, and describes the reusable effect library or middleware they left behind. 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 depth

35% weight

Probe haptic rendering depth: god-object or penalty-based contact models, 1 kHz control loops, passivity and stability, LRA versus voice-coil driver behaviour, OpenHaptics, Chai3D or Interhaptics APIs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
  • Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
  • Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
  • Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.

5
Excellent

Explains stability limits of their control loop, names actuator classes worked with, and derives why a rendered wall buzzed at given stiffness.

02
Evaluation factor

Work that shipped

30% weight

Ask which shipped devices or titles carried their haptic code: VR controllers, surgical simulators, teleoperation rigs, automotive touch panels; get build targets, latency budgets and effect libraries.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
  • States their own scope inside the project
  • Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
  • Explains what went wrong and what they changed

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.

2
Needs Improvement

Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.

3
Satisfactory

Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.

4
Very Good

Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.

5
Excellent

Names shipped hardware or titles, quantifies end-to-end latency achieved, and describes the reusable effect library or middleware they left behind.

03
Evaluation factor

Diagnosis under uncertainty

20% weight

Test debugging of felt-but-unmeasured faults: perceived lag with clean logs, actuator heating, aliasing in waveform playback, USB or BLE jitter, thread priority starvation on target hardware.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
  • Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
  • Distinguishes correlation from cause
  • Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.

2
Needs Improvement

Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.

5
Excellent

Describes instrumenting with accelerometers, scopes or trace tools to isolate a haptic artefact, separating perception complaints from measured signal defects.

04
Evaluation factor

Working across the org

15% weight

Assess collaboration with hardware and firmware engineers on actuator selection and mounting, plus how they translated designer intent into tuned waveforms and ran perceptual user testing.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
  • Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
  • Documents decisions so others can act on them
  • Takes review feedback without defensiveness

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.

3
Satisfactory

Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.

4
Very Good

Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.

5
Excellent

Shows concrete negotiation with EE and industrial design over mounting or power, and cites tuning sessions run with designers or test participants.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Haptic Interface Programmer

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

  1. 01

    Can you explain a project where you implemented a haptic interface?

  2. 02

    Which haptic hardware or devices have you worked with?

  3. 03

    Have you implemented haptic feedback in virtual or augmented reality?

  4. 04

    Which programming languages do you use for this work?

  5. 05

    Have you worked with device interfaces or development kits for haptic hardware?

See the complete Haptic Interface Programmer 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