Interview scorecard template

Voice User Interface (VUI) Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Voice User Interface (VUI) Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask to walk through shipped voice experiences: Alexa skills, Google Actions, IVR redesigns or in-car assistants. Look for sample dialogues, flow diagrams and persona. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationalexa skillsconversation designdialogue flowsvui
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows named shipped assistants with dialogue flows, prompt scripts and persona docs, plus containment or task completion numbers before and after. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains reprompt ladders, no-match and no-input handling, and TTS prosody choices with reasoning tied to user intent and cognitive load. 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 to walk through shipped voice experiences: Alexa skills, Google Actions, IVR redesigns or in-car assistants. Look for sample dialogues, flow diagrams and persona documents they authored.

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 named shipped assistants with dialogue flows, prompt scripts and persona docs, plus containment or task completion numbers before and after.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe handling of error recovery, reprompts, barge-in, confirmation strategy and SSML tuning. Ask why they chose implicit over explicit confirmation in a specific turn.

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 reprompt ladders, no-match and no-input handling, and TTS prosody choices with reasoning tied to user intent and cognitive load.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they use transcripts, utterance logs and intent confusion data to revise dialogue. Ask about a flow rewritten after Wizard of Oz or usability testing.

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

Cites specific transcript findings, expanded utterance sets or rewritten prompts, and reports the drop in fallback or hang-up rates afterwards.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Check collaboration with NLU engineers, linguists and product owners: writing intent and slot specifications, scoping voice-only versus multimodal, and negotiating platform certification constraints.

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

Translates ambiguous product goals into annotated flows, intent schemas and acceptance criteria engineers can build against without repeated clarification.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Voice User Interface (VUI) Designer

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

  1. 01

    Can you share examples of voice interface projects you have worked on?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience designing for the major voice assistant platforms?

  3. 03

    Have you designed a voice interface for a complex task, and how did users respond?

  4. 04

    How does designing a voice interface differ from designing a screen interface?

  5. 05

    What method do you use to prototype a voice interface design?

See the complete Voice User Interface (VUI) 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