The Portfolio Overweight Problem
Most design interviews spend too much time on portfolio visuals and too little on the thinking behind them. Visual output is the result of process. A candidate who produced beautiful work with heavy direction may be a weaker hire than one who produced good-enough work while shaping the problem definition.
Portfolio review should be a starting point for process questions, not a conclusion.
Core Evaluation Dimensions
Problem Framing: Do they question the brief, or execute on it? Strong designers push back on 'how it should look' and ask 'what problem are we solving' before opening a design tool.
Design Judgment: Can they articulate why a design decision is correct beyond 'it looks better'? Judgment includes tradeoffs between clarity, density, accessibility, and implementation feasibility.
User Empathy with Evidence: There's a difference between saying 'I always design for the user' and being able to describe specific research behaviors, testing methods, and design changes that resulted from what they found.
Cross-Functional Communication: Designs that stay in Figma fail. Look for evidence of how they've worked with engineering on implementation constraints and how they've brought product along on decisions that required explanation.
Portfolio Review Protocol
Ask candidates to present one project in depth — including what didn't work and what they'd change. This surfaces ownership, reflection, and intellectual honesty more reliably than a polished walkthrough of every project in their portfolio.
Ask specifically: 'What did you personally produce vs. what did the team produce?' Collaborative work is valuable context, but inability to separate individual contribution is a flag.
Avoiding Aesthetic Bias
Interviewers consistently over-rate work that matches their own aesthetic preferences. A design evaluation panel should include at least one person focused on user outcomes and functional quality, not visual style.
Evaluate accessibility as a baseline hygiene check. Candidates who haven't considered color contrast, touch target sizes, or screen reader behavior for key flows may produce visually appealing work that fails in production.