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 sitemaps, taxonomies, content models and navigation redesigns they personally owned; ask for site scale, page or SKU counts, and the search or findability metrics that moved.
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
Walks through a large-scale restructure with before and after findability data, showing their own sitemaps, content models and labelling systems.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Probe method depth: card sorting (open and closed), tree testing in Optimal Workshop, faceted metadata schemes, controlled vocabularies, and how they chose labels over stakeholder jargon.
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 why a taxonomy was polyhierarchical or flat, cites card sort agreement scores, and defends label choices with user language evidence.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Test how they handled a failed tree test or analytics showing users bypassing navigation; look for rework cycles and what the second structure changed.
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 structure that tested badly, names the specific task success rate, and shows the revised model plus retest results.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Assess how they work with content strategists, SEO, and engineering on CMS constraints; ask about migration mapping, redirect plans, and governance handed to content owners.
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
Negotiates CMS and URL constraints early, delivers migration and redirect maps, and leaves a governance model owners can maintain.
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.
