UI/UX Designer Job Description Template

Figma execution · 20%
UI/UX delivery at this level depends on producing maintainable, implementation-ready Figma work. Evaluated in Round 1.

• Weak: Produces low-fidelity or hard-to-use files; prototypes or components are incomplete or inconsistent; struggles to structure files for handoff.
• Meets the bar: Creates clear wireframes and high-fidelity screens in Figma with organized layers/styles; produces usable prototypes and specs for handoff.
• Strong: Delivers production-ready Figma assets with strong component structure, consistent naming, reusable patterns, and interaction specs that minimize engineering clarification.

Interaction and usability · 20%
The role requires designing usable interactions and iterating based on usability principles and evidence. Evaluated in Round 2.

• Weak: Relies on visual design alone; interactions lack clear affordances; usability risks are not addressed.
• Meets the bar: Applies usability heuristics to interactions (feedback, hierarchy, error prevention) and addresses common friction points.
• Strong: Proactively designs for learnability and error handling, uses interaction patterns effectively, and demonstrates measurable usability improvements from iterations.

Flow and IA design · 18%
Mid-level designers must translate problems into coherent user flows and information architecture. Evaluated in Round 1.

• Weak: Interfaces are screen-by-screen with unclear navigation or user intent; flows omit key steps or edge cases.
• Meets the bar: Defines practical user flows and IA that align to requirements; wireframes show key states, errors, and decision points.
• Strong: Designs end-to-end flows with clear rationale, covers edge cases and empty/error states, and improves clarity of navigation and decision-making.

Design-to-dev collaboration · 18%
Reducing design-to-development gaps is critical to shipping quality UI effectively. Evaluated in Round 2.

• Weak: Handoff lacks detail or context; provides limited responsiveness to engineering concerns.
• Meets the bar: Communicates design intent clearly, responds to engineering questions, and adjusts designs based on constraints while preserving UX goals.
• Strong: Anticipates implementation constraints, provides actionable specs (states, behavior, accessibility notes), and aligns with engineers on tradeoffs to protect UX outcomes.

UX research and iteration · 14%
Mid-level designers should use feedback and lightweight research to drive iterations that improve outcomes. Evaluated in Round 3.

• Weak: Gathers feedback but does not translate insights into design changes; iterations lack rationale.
• Meets the bar: Uses qualitative feedback/usability findings to refine designs and documents what changed and why.
• Strong: Selects appropriate evaluation methods, synthesizes insights, prioritizes fixes, and closes the loop with evidence-informed design decisions.

Accessibility awareness · 6%
Accessible UI patterns reduce usability barriers and improve overall product quality. Evaluated in Round 3.

• Weak: Limited attention to accessibility considerations; misses obvious accessibility issues in UI.
• Meets the bar: Considers accessibility basics (contrast, focus order, labels) and incorporates relevant patterns into designs.
• Strong: Integrates accessibility requirements into interaction and component design and anticipates accessibility impacts during handoff.

UX communication clarity · 4%
Clear communication enables alignment across product, design, and engineering. Evaluated in Round 3.

• Weak: Struggles to explain design rationale or tradeoffs; feedback becomes subjective with no decision criteria.
• Meets the bar: Explains rationale using goals, user needs, and usability reasoning; handles critique constructively.
• Strong: Communicates tradeoffs concisely, supports decisions with evidence, and drives alignment toward shared UX outcomes.