Interview scorecard template

Universal Design Specialist interview scorecard

Evaluate Universal Design Specialist candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review projects where they designed for the full range of users: wayfinding for low vision, transfer clearances in wet rooms, or WCAG 2.2 AA remediation. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationaccessibilityada complianceuniversal designwcag
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows before and after evidence across built and digital work, naming clearances, contrast ratios, and users consulted for each. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate distinguishes minimum code compliance from inclusive outcomes, citing exact clauses and explaining why a compliant detail still failed users. 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

Review projects where they designed for the full range of users: wayfinding for low vision, transfer clearances in wet rooms, or WCAG 2.2 AA remediation of a public service portal.

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 before and after evidence across built and digital work, naming clearances, contrast ratios, and users consulted for each.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test command of the standards they cite: ADA Standards, ISO 21542, Approved Document M, WCAG success criteria, and where they diverge from true universal design principles.

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

Distinguishes minimum code compliance from inclusive outcomes, citing exact clauses and explaining why a compliant detail still failed users.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Probe how they handled pushback when accessible details raised cost or clashed with heritage fabric, aesthetics, or a locked development sprint.

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 negotiated alternatives that preserved function, backed by user testing results or an access consultant's sign off.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess how they run access audits and user panels: recruiting disabled participants, assistive tech testing with JAWS or NVDA, and writing findings into design briefs.

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

Turns lived experience feedback into prioritised, costed recommendations that project teams actually adopted and tracked to closure.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Universal Design Specialist

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

  1. 01

    Can you give examples of projects where you integrated universal design?

  2. 02

    What experience do you have creating accessible environments in different building types?

  3. 03

    How do you make outdoor spaces accessible to everyone?

  4. 04

    How do you design for different mobility, vision and hearing needs?

  5. 05

    How do you make designs work for all ages, including children and older people?

See the complete Universal Design Specialist 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