AlabamaCreates Studio

Interactive Orientation Assessment Rubric

Cohort 1 · Both Project Cycles

12 Weeks · 2 Project Cycles · Opens Sat Jul 25, 2026 · Closes Sat Oct 17, 2026

How This Rubric Works

This rubric is used by the orientation lead to assess each interactive director at two checkpoints: end of Cycle 1 (Week 6, Sun Sep 6, 2026) and end of Cycle 2 (Week 12, Sun Oct 18, 2026). The same categories are evaluated each time. The standard rises between cycles.

Each category is scored on a four-level scale:

Level	Label	Meaning
1	Not Yet	Has not demonstrated this capability. Needs direct instruction.
2	Emerging	Shows early signs but inconsistent. Needs regular coaching.
3	Developing	Demonstrates capability with occasional gaps. Needs light guidance.
4	Independent	Demonstrates capability consistently without prompting. Ready to practice.

The goal is not for every interactive director to reach Level 4 in every category by Week 12. The goal is visible, documentable progression from wherever they started. A director who moves from 1 to 3 across two cycles has demonstrated significant growth. A director who stays at 2 across both has not.

Category 1: Experience Strategy

Can they define who a site is for, what it should feel like, and what it should accomplish, grounded in the brand positioning?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	Cannot answer the three experience questions. Jumps to layout before strategy.	Still dependent on lead for experience direction. No meaningful progression from Cycle 1.
2	Can answer the questions with coaching. Answers are vague or borrowed from the brand strategy verbatim.	Experience rationale is adequate but not directional. Still occasionally vague.
3	Answers are defensible and grounded in the brand strategy and discovery findings. Can explain why the experience structure matters.	Experience rationale is specific, ties directly to positioning, and drives every layout decision.
4	Experience strategy is clear, specific, and directly informs all downstream design decisions. Can defend it under pressure.	Anticipates every question. Defends experience decisions with evidence and conviction. Needs no coaching.

What to look for

Do they start with the three experience questions or jump to Figma?
Can they tie the information architecture back to the audience and the positioning?
Is their experience rationale a defensible stance, or is it generic best-practices language?

Category 2: Visual and Structural Design (Figma)

Does the Figma design serve the experience strategy, and does it apply the six design first principles consistently?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	Visual choices are arbitrary. No grid, inconsistent type, broken hierarchy. Cannot explain why any element is placed where it is.	Visual work does not demonstrate growth from Cycle 1.
2	Some choices connect to the experience rationale but the design lacks coherence. Type hierarchy is unclear. Grid is applied inconsistently.	Design is competent but lacks the precision that distinguishes professional work.
3	Most choices are traceable to strategy. Type hierarchy is clear. Grid is intentional. Interaction states defined. Can apply visual first principles when prompted.	Strong design with clear rationale. Self-critiques effectively before presenting. Design is portfolio-quality.
4	Every choice serves the experience strategy. All six first principles applied without prompting. Design is clearly a system, not a collection of pages.	Work is indistinguishable from agency-produced design. Defends every decision. The design speaks for itself.

What to look for

Can they walk through type hierarchy, grid, visual hierarchy, interaction, responsive, and performance in their own design?
Does the design feel like a system across pages, or a set of unrelated mockups?
Is every spacing value, font size, and color traceable to a decision, or is anything arbitrary?

Category 3: Build and QA Rigor

Does the built site match the Figma design, and can they systematically close the gap between what they designed and what got built?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	Built site diverges significantly from Figma. Cannot describe discrepancies specifically. QA is absent or surface-level.	QA has not developed as a skill.
2	Built site mostly matches Figma at desktop but drifts at tablet/mobile. QA catches the obvious issues and misses the subtle ones (spacing, line heights, letter spacing).	QA is consistent but not yet comprehensive. Lead still finds issues they missed.
3	Built site matches Figma closely at every breakpoint. QA is systematic. Director catches most discrepancies before lead review.	QA is comprehensive and self-directed. Lead finds few or no issues the director missed.
4	Built site is a precise match to Figma. QA process is documented, systematic, and internalized. Director catches everything before lead reviews.	QA is indistinguishable from a senior practitioner. Could teach the process to someone else.

What to look for

When they find a discrepancy, can they describe it specifically enough for Claude to fix it?
Does the built site match the Figma at every breakpoint, or only on their own laptop?
Do they run QA as a continuous practice during the build, or only at the end?
How many issues does the lead find that the director missed?

Category 4: AI Fluency

Are they directing AI tools to execute their vision with precision, or curating output and hoping something works?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	Prompts are vague. Claude output requires many iterations to approximate the Figma. Accepts output that does not match the design.	No meaningful progression from Cycle 1.
2	Prompts are more specific but still broad. Takes 5+ iterations to reach each section. Does not consistently reference Figma specs in prompts.	Prompts are specific but not consistently vision-led.
3	Prompts reference Figma values (font sizes, spacing, hex codes, interaction specs). Reaches design match in 2–3 iterations per section. Knows when to redirect.	Precise, iterative, vision-led prompting. Uses AI as a tool, not a creative partner.
4	Directs Claude with the specificity of a senior developer brief. Output matches Figma on first or second iteration. Knows what they are describing before touching any tool.	Full directorial control. Could teach someone else how to prompt Claude for interactive work.

What to look for

How many iterations does it take to match the Figma design in a given section?
Do they describe what they want before they start prompting?
Are they referencing exact values (12px, #1a1a1a, 24px line-height), or vague directions ("make the text bigger")?
Can they diagnose why Claude produced the wrong output and describe the correction clearly?

Category 5: Client Communication and Presentation

Can they present work to a client, defend their decisions, and walk through a live site with confidence?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	Cannot present work clearly. Does not connect the live site to the experience strategy. Reads from slides.	Presentation skills have not improved.
2	Presents but does not tell a story. Connects deliverables to strategy when prompted. Struggles with client questions.	Competent presenter but lacks conviction on difficult questions.
3	Presents clearly with strategy-to-site connection. Walks the client through the live site with confidence. Handles most questions with rationale.	Strong presenter. Leads the room. Defends decisions with evidence.
4	Commands the room. Every part of the live site is framed in terms of what the audience needs and why. Handles pushback with ease.	Could present to any client in any context. The program's proof of concept.

What to look for

Do they show mockups, or do they walk through the live site with intention?
When the client pushes back, do they cave, defer, or defend with rationale grounded in discovery?
By Cycle 2, does the presentation feel like a professional agency handoff?

Category 6: Studio Coordination & Integrated Delivery

Can the participant coordinate across tracks, keep the studio aligned, and contribute to one integrated delivery? (Shared dimension across all three disciplines.) Does the interactive work connect to brand and motion, or is it operating in isolation?

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 18)
1	No coordination with teammates. Digital experience exists in isolation. Brand assets not correctly applied.	Team integration has not developed.
2	Applies brand identity but does not coordinate on how it extends. Adds motion assets late with no specification handoff.	Coordinates but does not drive integration.
3	Receives brand strategy early. Defines motion specs (where, when, how long) for the Motion director. Deploys staging URL so teammates can test in context.	Full integration. The team output feels like one vision, not three tracks.
4	Interactive is the connective tissue between Brand and Motion. Proactively ensures the three outputs feel like one system.	The team is indistinguishable from a professional creative team.

What to look for

Is the brand identity correctly applied in the built site, or are there visible breakdowns?
Does the motion content feel embedded in the experience, or tacked on?
Does the interactive director see themselves as the delivery point for the whole team's work?

Assessment Record Template

Director Name: ____________________

Category	Max	Cycle 1 (End Wk 6 · Sep 6)	Cycle 2 (End Wk 12 · Oct 18)
Experience Strategy	/4
Visual and Structural Design	/4
Build and QA Rigor	/4
AI Fluency	/4
Client Communication	/4
Team Integration	/4
Total	/24

Narrative assessment (required at end of Cycle 2)

Where did this person start?
What changed?
What is their realistic 90–180 day path forward as a working creative?