UX

What to look for when hiring a UX designer

Most job ads ask for a UX designer. Most of the people who apply are UI designers. Knowing the difference before you hire could save you a significant amount of time and money.

What UX design actually involves, why visual design skills do not automatically translate into UX skills, and the questions that reveal whether a candidate understands the work or just the outputs.

21 April 20267 min read

In short

What UX design actually involves, why visual design skills do not automatically translate into UX skills, and the questions that reveal whether a candidate understands the work or just the outputs.

Why UX and UI are not the same role

The confusion usually starts here. and UX design are related, they often overlap, and in smaller teams one person might do both. But they are not the same thing, and treating them as interchangeable is where hiring decisions start to go wrong.

is concerned with the visual layer: how something looks, how it feels to interact with, the of components, the quality of the visual language. It is a skilled discipline and it matters. But it operates on the surface of an experience.

UX design is concerned with how that experience is structured underneath. Why a journey exists in the form it does. Whether the right decisions are being surfaced at the right time. Whether the product is solving the correct problem for the user in the first place.

It involves , analysis, thinking, and an ability to challenge how things are currently set up, not just improve how they look.

A UI designer who is excellent at their craft can still produce something that does not work, because the problem they are solving is a visual one. A 's job is to make sure the visual layer is solving the right problem before it is designed at all.

A strong portfolio tells you someone can design. It does not tell you whether they can think through the problem behind the design.

Why being a good designer does not make someone a good UX designer

This is the part that catches most hiring managers out. Visual design skill is visible and easy to evaluate. You can look at a portfolio and immediately form an opinion. UX thinking is much harder to see, because the most important work happens before anything is created.

A good will have spent significant time understanding why a journey is structured the way it is, what the user is actually trying to achieve, where the experience creates unnecessary effort, and what would need to change to fix it.

None of that shows up in a polished screen. It shows up in how someone talks about their , what they challenged, what they pushed back on, and what they changed as a result of rather than instinct.

If a portfolio is full of beautiful but the candidate struggles to articulate the decisions behind them, that is a signal. If they can describe how something looked but not why it was structured that way, that is a signal too.

Key takeaway

UX is a thinking discipline before it is a making discipline. Hiring for outputs rather than process is what leads to the wrong person in the role.

What UX design actually involves

To hire for UX properly, it helps to be clear about what the role actually requires.

A should be able to map and critique existing , not just redesign them visually. Identify where is coming from and whether it is a design problem, a process problem, or a product problem. Conduct or synthesise user research and translate it into decisions, not just deliverables. Challenge briefs and ask whether the right problem is being solved. Work across stakeholders to align understanding before a single screen is designed.

What UX design is not: making look good, adding animations, creating a , or producing high-fidelity mockups. Those things may be part of the work, but they are not what makes someone a .

Someone who is primarily focused on those outputs is likely a UI or , and there is nothing wrong with that. It is just a different role.

The questions that reveal whether someone understands UX

The most useful interview questions are the ones that move away from what someone made and towards why they made it, what they questioned, and what they would have done differently.

Ask them to walk you through a project where the original brief turned out to be wrong. How did they identify that? What did they do about it? A strong will have a clear answer here. Someone primarily focused on will likely struggle, because challenging the brief was not part of how they approached the work.

Ask them what they do before they open a design tool. The answer tells you a lot. A UX-led answer will involve understanding the problem, mapping the existing journey, talking to users, identifying where things break down. An answer that jumps quickly to wireframes or sketching suggests someone who defaults to output rather than understanding.

Ask them about a time when their changed the direction of a project. What did they find? How did they present it? What changed as a result? If they cannot point to a specific example, it suggests research is something they document rather than something they use.

Ask them to critique your current product or a journey they have encountered recently. Not how it looks, but how it works. Where does it create unnecessary effort? What decisions are being pushed onto the user that should not be? A strong will have an instinctive answer to this. Someone who defaults to is showing you where their thinking sits.

What to look for in a portfolio

A portfolio that with visual quality alone should raise questions.

The strongest UX portfolios show as much as output: the that shaped a decision, the earlier that did not work and why, the constraint that changed the direction of the work.

If a case study is mostly screenshots with captions about visual choices, you are looking at a UI portfolio. If it is mostly about how a problem was understood, defined, and resolved, you are looking at something closer to UX.

Pay attention to how they talk about users. Are users something they interviewed and referenced in decisions, or something they mentioned in passing to add to a visual direction? The difference is usually clear within a few sentences.

Why this matters more than most teams realise

Hiring the wrong type of designer does not just slow things down. It changes what gets built.

A team without genuine UX will default to making existing journeys look better rather than questioning whether those journeys should exist in that form at all. Products improve visually but the structural problems remain, and those structural problems are usually what is driving the issues, the , and the user complaints.

The most expensive of this is discovering it after six months. A who is actually a UI designer will produce good-looking work, and that can delay the realisation that the underlying problems have not been addressed.

By the time it becomes clear that the experience is not improving meaningfully, a significant amount of time and budget has already been spent.

Getting the hire right at the start is considerably cheaper than getting it wrong and realising later.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services. The work usually starts where things have become harder than they need to be: unclear journeys, inconsistent products, competing priorities, or teams trying to move forward without a clear direction. I help simplify the problem, shape the right next step, and turn complexity into something people can actually use.

Previous feedback

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer

01/20