Interview scorecard template

Multimodal Interaction Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Multimodal Interaction Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for shipped multimodal work: voice plus touch flows, in-car HMI, AR gesture sets or wearable haptics. Look for prototypes in Figma, ProtoPie, Unity or Voiceflow. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationconversation designgesture prototypingmultimodal uxvoice interaction
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows two or more shipped multimodal products, walking through voice, gesture and screen states with real device footage and usage data. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains why each modality carried a given task, citing latency thresholds, confirmation strategies and accessibility trade-offs rather than aesthetic preference. 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

Ask for shipped multimodal work: voice plus touch flows, in-car HMI, AR gesture sets or wearable haptics. Look for prototypes in Figma, ProtoPie, Unity or Voiceflow.

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 shipped multimodal products, walking through voice, gesture and screen states with real device footage and usage data.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe craft decisions: modality handoff rules, barge-in and error repair in voice, haptic timing, latency budgets, and fallback when the microphone or camera fails.

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 each modality carried a given task, citing latency thresholds, confirmation strategies and accessibility trade-offs rather than aesthetic preference.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they iterate: Wizard of Oz sessions, in-context testing in noisy or driving environments, intent recognition failure logs, and what changed after usability rounds.

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 triggered by test evidence, such as reworked prompts after high misrecognition rates or a dropped gesture users could not discover.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Check how they translate constraints from speech engineers, hardware limits, WCAG and safety guidelines (for example NHTSA driver distraction) into a workable design brief.

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

Reframes vague briefs into modality requirements, negotiates scope with ASR and firmware teams, and documents decisions in a shared interaction spec.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Multimodal Interaction Designer

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

  1. 01

    Describe an interface you designed that worked particularly well and why.

  2. 02

    What is the most complex interface you have designed, and what made it complex?

  3. 03

    Can you give an example where your design measurably improved how people used a system?

  4. 04

    What is your understanding of designing across multiple interaction modes?

  5. 05

    What do you consider the essential elements of an effective multimodal interface?

See the complete Multimodal Interaction 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