Product Designer Job Description Template

User flow execution · 23%
This role requires independent end-to-end flow design with clear interaction logic and edge cases so engineers can implement correctly. Evaluated in Round 1.

• Weak: Creates isolated screens without a clear flow or interaction logic; misses major states/edge cases.
• Meets the bar: Produces complete flows with coherent navigation and core states; accounts for primary edge cases.
• Strong: Delivers end-to-end flows with strong IA, explicitly defined states/edge cases, and clear interaction rationale validated by user input.

Prototyping and usability · 19%
Strong prototyping and usability thinking are essential to validate direction early and refine designs based on findings. Evaluated in Round 2.

• Weak: Uses low-value mockups without testing assumptions; struggles to translate feedback into concrete changes.
• Meets the bar: Builds prototypes that support key decisions; synthesizes usability findings into iterative design updates.
• Strong: Creates decision-focused prototypes, runs/organizes usability validation effectively, and prioritizes changes with clear evidence.

Cross-functional communication · 17%
Independent work requires crisp alignment with Product and Engineering, including tradeoffs, assumptions, and implementation guidance. Evaluated in Round 1.

• Weak: Shares work late or unclearly; feedback is unclear and decisions lack documented rationale.
• Meets the bar: Communicates design intent and rationale clearly; responds to feedback and aligns on requirements.
• Strong: Leads alignment through concise explanations, anticipates engineering/product concerns, and documents decisions to reduce ambiguity.

Design system collaboration · 15%
Consistency, component usage, and proper patterns reduce implementation risk and maintain product coherence. Evaluated in Round 2.

• Weak: Relies heavily on one-off UI elements; inconsistently applies components and states.
• Meets the bar: Uses appropriate design system components/variants and documents necessary deviations.
• Strong: Improves consistency by selecting correct patterns, proposing component enhancements when needed, and ensuring accessibility/state correctness across surfaces.

Accessibility and inclusive design · 15%
Inclusive design is required to deliver high-quality experiences across users and to avoid costly rework later. Evaluated in Round 3.

• Weak: Demonstrates limited consideration of accessibility; overlooks keyboard/focus or semantic needs.
• Meets the bar: Applies accessibility checks (e.g., contrast, focus order, keyboard interaction) and considers inclusive edge cases.
• Strong: Proactively integrates accessibility requirements into interaction design and validation, and articulates how inclusive needs are addressed.

Iterative problem solving · 11%
Designers must iterate based on feedback, constraints, and learnings without losing the user goal. Evaluated in Round 3.

• Weak: Stays fixed on an initial concept; changes are reactive without explaining why.
• Meets the bar: Iterates based on feedback and constraints; maintains user goals while refining solutions.
• Strong: Uses structured iteration (evidence → decision → redesign), clearly tracks what changed and why, and improves outcomes over time.