LIGHTNINGHIRE
Evaluates designers who can understand users, structure product flows, collaborate cross-functionally, and ship polished experiences.
Weighted signals · 100/100
User problem discovery
20
Uses research, customer input, and product context to frame design problems
Interaction design
20
Designs clear flows, information architecture, states, and edge cases
Visual craft
15
Shows polished UI, hierarchy, accessibility, and design system fluency
Product judgment
15
Makes tradeoffs based on user value, business goals, and feasibility
Cross-functional collaboration
15
Works effectively with PM, engineering, research, and stakeholders
Outcome orientation
15
Connects design work to adoption, usability, conversion, or customer outcomes
Must-haves
Disqualifiers
Interview probes
Pre-built interview questions · 10 questions
User problem discovery
Walk me through a time when you had to deeply understand a user problem before designing a solution. How did you approach the discovery process?
Evaluates ability to use research and data to frame design problems rather than jumping to solutions
Strong: Describes systematic research approach, multiple data sources (user interviews, analytics, support tickets), synthesized insights into clear problem statements, validated assumptions
Average: Shows some research methods, gathered user feedback, identified basic user needs but may lack depth or synthesis
Weak: Relied mainly on assumptions, limited research, jumped to solutions quickly, couldn't articulate clear problem definition
Follow-ups:
• What specific research methods did you use and why?
• How did you validate that you were solving the right problem?
Describe a project where you had to balance conflicting user needs or stakeholder requirements. How did you prioritize what problems to solve?
Tests ability to synthesize complex user and business context into clear problem prioritization
Strong: Used data and user research to prioritize, considered business impact and user value, created frameworks for decision-making, communicated rationale clearly
Average: Identified conflicts, made reasonable decisions with some data support, basic prioritization logic
Weak: Struggled to prioritize, made decisions based on opinion rather than evidence, couldn't articulate clear reasoning
Follow-ups:
• What criteria did you use to make these prioritization decisions?
• How did you communicate these tradeoffs to stakeholders?
Interaction design
Tell me about a complex user flow you designed. Walk me through your process from initial concept to final interaction design.
Assesses core interaction design skills including flow logic, information architecture, and comprehensive scenario planning
Strong: Demonstrates systematic approach to flow design, considered multiple user paths, addressed edge cases and error states, iterated based on testing, shows clear information architecture thinking
Average: Created functional flows, covered main user paths, some consideration of different scenarios, basic IA principles
Weak: Linear thinking, missed edge cases, unclear navigation logic, didn't consider different user contexts or failure states
Follow-ups:
• How did you handle edge cases or error states in this flow?
• What changes did you make after testing the initial design?
Describe a time when you had to redesign an existing interface or flow. How did you approach the information architecture and interaction patterns?
Evaluates systematic thinking about information architecture and ability to improve complex interaction patterns
Strong: Audited existing patterns, identified structural issues, applied IA principles, considered mental models, tested new patterns, maintained consistency where appropriate
Average: Improved existing flows, made logical structural changes, some IA consideration, reasonable pattern choices
Weak: Made surface-level changes, didn't address underlying structural issues, inconsistent patterns, poor navigation logic
Follow-ups:
• What specific IA principles guided your redesign decisions?
• How did you ensure the new patterns would be intuitive for existing users?
Visual craft
Show me an example of your visual design work and explain the design decisions you made around hierarchy, accessibility, and design system consistency.
Directly assesses visual design skills, accessibility knowledge, and design system fluency through portfolio review
Strong: Demonstrates clear visual hierarchy, explains accessibility considerations (contrast, typography, spacing), shows design system fluency, polished execution with attention to detail
Average: Good visual hierarchy, some accessibility awareness, follows design system basics, generally clean execution
Weak: Unclear hierarchy, limited accessibility consideration, inconsistent with design systems, lacks polish or attention to detail
Follow-ups:
• How did you ensure this design met accessibility standards?
• What design system constraints or opportunities influenced these decisions?
Product judgment
Tell me about a time when you had to balance user needs with technical constraints or business limitations. How did you approach this tradeoff?
Tests ability to make strategic product decisions that balance user value with business and technical reality
Strong: Clearly articulated competing priorities, used frameworks to evaluate tradeoffs, found creative solutions that balanced constraints, communicated impact of decisions
Average: Identified key tradeoffs, made reasonable compromises, some structured thinking about priorities
Weak: Struggled to balance competing needs, made arbitrary decisions, couldn't articulate reasoning or impact
Follow-ups:
• What framework did you use to evaluate these tradeoffs?
• How did you measure whether your compromise was successful?
Cross-functional collaboration
Describe a project where you had to influence stakeholders or team members to support a design decision. What was your approach?
Evaluates ability to collaborate effectively and influence cross-functional teams through design leadership
Strong: Built compelling case with data and user evidence, understood stakeholder perspectives, facilitated collaborative decision-making, achieved buy-in through clear communication
Average: Presented design rationale, engaged with feedback, achieved reasonable consensus, basic stakeholder management
Weak: Struggled to gain support, poor communication of design rationale, defensive about feedback, couldn't build consensus
Follow-ups:
• How did you tailor your communication to different stakeholder groups?
• What resistance did you encounter and how did you address it?
Tell me about a time when you had to work closely with engineering to implement a design. How did you ensure the final product met your design intent?
Assesses practical collaboration skills with engineering teams and ability to maintain design quality through implementation
Strong: Proactive collaboration throughout implementation, clear documentation and specs, regular check-ins, problem-solved constraints together, maintained design quality
Average: Good handoff process, communicated with engineering during build, addressed major issues, reasonable final quality
Weak: Poor handoff, limited collaboration during implementation, significant gaps between design and final product
Follow-ups:
• What tools or processes did you use to communicate design specifications?
• How did you handle situations where technical constraints required design changes?
Outcome orientation
Walk me through a design project where you were able to measure the impact of your work. What metrics did you track and what were the results?
Evaluates ability to connect design work to measurable business and user outcomes rather than just delivering designs
Strong: Defined clear success metrics upfront, tracked relevant user and business outcomes, connected design changes to measurable improvements, iterated based on results
Average: Measured some outcomes, basic understanding of impact, tracked standard metrics like conversion or usability scores
Weak: Limited measurement, couldn't connect design work to business outcomes, focused only on output rather than impact
Follow-ups:
• How did you decide which metrics were most important to track?
• What did you learn from these results that influenced your future design decisions?
Describe a time when a design you shipped didn't perform as expected. How did you identify what went wrong and what did you do about it?
Tests accountability for outcomes and ability to learn from failure while demonstrating continuous improvement mindset
Strong: Proactively monitored performance, used data and user feedback to diagnose issues, took ownership and iterated quickly, learned from failure
Average: Recognized poor performance, investigated causes, made improvements, showed some learning from the experience
Weak: Didn't monitor outcomes, blamed external factors, slow to respond to poor performance, limited learning or iteration
Follow-ups:
• What specific data or feedback helped you understand what went wrong?
• How did this experience change your approach to future projects?