Interview scorecard template

Senior UI/UX Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Senior UI/UX Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask them to walk through two shipped product flows: onboarding, checkout, or dashboard work. Look for before and after screens, Figma prototypes, and measurable outcomes. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationdesign systemsfigmaui designux research
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows live shipped screens, explains the problem and constraints behind each, and cites conversion, retention, or support ticket movement. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate defends layout, hierarchy, and accessibility choices with specifics on tokens, states, responsive breakpoints, and edge cases like empty and error views. 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 them to walk through two shipped product flows: onboarding, checkout, or dashboard work. Look for before and after screens, Figma prototypes, and measurable outcomes like task completion or drop-off.

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 live shipped screens, explains the problem and constraints behind each, and cites conversion, retention, or support ticket movement.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe grid systems, type scales, component variants, auto layout, tokens, and WCAG contrast decisions. Ask why they chose a pattern over a modal, drawer, or wizard.

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

Defends layout, hierarchy, and accessibility choices with specifics on tokens, states, responsive breakpoints, and edge cases like empty and error views.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled usability test findings, analytics from Hotjar or Amplitude, and critique from engineers who said a design was not buildable.

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 killing a favoured concept after five user sessions, and reworking specs with engineering rather than defending the original comp.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Check how they turn vague product requests into scoped design work: discovery questions, success metrics agreed with PMs, and handoff specs engineers actually used.

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 fuzzy briefs into stated user problems, agrees success measures upfront, and delivers handoff files that reduce build-time clarification requests.

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