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 case studies where cognitive load, sensory sensitivity or dyslexia-friendly typography drove decisions; look for before and after flows, WCAG 2.2 conformance notes, and shipped screens.
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 shipped work with measurable reductions in task abandonment or error rates for neurodivergent users, not just accessibility audits.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Probe rationale for reduced-motion settings, plain language rewrites, focus order, and colour contrast; ask which Figma components and design tokens they built for adjustable interfaces.
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 each choice against specific cognitive research or WCAG success criteria, and names trade-offs made against visual density or brand.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Assess how they run moderated sessions with autistic, ADHD or dyslexic participants: recruitment, sensory-safe setup, screen reader and NVDA pairing, and how findings changed the design.
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 participant-led iterations with compensation and consent practices, and cites feedback that overturned their own preferred solution.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Check how they handle briefs where deadlines or brand guidelines conflict with inclusive requirements; ask about working with engineers, legal teams and accessibility statements.
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 scope with evidence, ships an accessible baseline early, and documents remaining gaps for the product backlog.
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.
