Category 1: Design Process & Problem-Solving
Walk me through a project where you took a design from concept to final implementation. What challenges did you encounter?
DSP needed contextual targeting due to privacy concerns
Designed solution for user confidence using emerging NLP
Started simple, conducted 2-year research, redesigned for natural language input
Backend earned patent, solved complexity, ready for platform integration
At Vericast, our DSP needed to move from pixel-based tracking to contextual targeting due to privacy concerns, which required a completely new approach to how users defined ad placement contexts. My responsibility was to design a solution that would give users confidence in their targeting decisions while leveraging emerging NLP technology that engineering was exploring. I started by designing a simple interface based on engineering's Jupyter Notebook work to get something into users' hands quickly, then conducted continuous user research over two years to understand their confidence issues, which led me to redesign the interface around natural language input with both qualitative URL previews and quantitative estimations. The backend service earned a patent, we solved the complexity problem that had plagued users, and the context builder is now ready for integration across our platform, teaching me that iterative development with sustained user engagement produces better outcomes than trying to design the perfect solution upfront.
2. Describe a situation where user research revealed something unexpected that changed your design direction.
Expected UI problems, found system architecture issues
Goal was to improve operations staff efficiency
Research revealed reusability issues, backend/frontend mismatch, estimation problems
Redirected to fundamental changes: 20% setup time reduction, exposed need for product roles
When I investigated our targeting system after strategic research showed a disconnect between client satisfaction and internal user complaints, I expected to find UI problems or missing features. My goal was to understand the root cause of user frustration and propose solutions that would improve efficiency for operations staff managing thousands of campaigns. Through comprehensive remote and in-person research sessions plus stakeholder interviews with engineering, I discovered the real problems were that users couldn't reuse targeting objects across tools, the backend model didn't match what the frontend displayed, and estimations were too general to be useful. This research redirected our entire approach from incremental UI fixes to fundamental system changes, resulting in unified targeting UI, reusable profiles, and 20% reduction in campaign setup time, while also exposing the need for product management roles to coordinate large-scale efforts.
3. Tell me about a time when you had to design a complex workflow for a B2B or SaaS product. What was your approach?
Pre-sales tool didn't serve multiple personas across workflow stages
Designed planning tool connecting pre-sales to execution with multiple requirements
Iterated layouts, mapped lifecycle, used libraries/drawers/tables
Final concept connects workflows for both internal and external users
Our pre-sales tool only configured one aspect of campaign planning, but sales, solution managers, and campaign managers all needed different capabilities at different workflow stages with no way to transfer work between them. I worked with an executive director of product and director of research to design a planning tool that would connect pre-sales to execution, requiring intelligent estimations, prominent targeting maps for presentations, budget balancing, and one-click conversion to campaigns. I iterated through many layouts—tabs, different card arrangements, various map sizes—while mapping the full campaign lifecycle to balance detail, using a library for reusable objects, drawers for detailed views without leaving the main screen, and table layouts that mimicked Excel workflows. The final concept became the missing piece connecting pre-sales to execution for both internal managed service users presenting proposals and external self-service users, teaching me that when we got stuck, looking to users helped us refocus even when meetings ended further from alignment than when they started.
4. Share an innovative solution you implemented in a design project.
Context Builder required rigid taxonomies with low user confidence
Transformed to self-service tool leveraging NLP capabilities
Redesigned for natural language input with qualitative and quantitative feedback
Backend earned patent, users gained confidence, ready for platform integration
Context Builder originally required users to define targeting through rigid category taxonomies with engineering support, leaving them with low confidence about whether their contexts would work effectively. My responsibility was to transform this into a self-service tool that gave users confidence while leveraging the NLP capabilities engineering was developing with word embeddings. I redesigned the interface to accept natural language descriptions instead of taxonomies, then pushed engineering to provide both qualitative feedback showing top URLs and apps where ads would appear plus quantitative estimations of reach and performance. The backend service earned a patent, users could finally create contexts independently with confidence, and the tool is ready for platform-wide integration, demonstrating that the best innovations come from close collaboration between design and engineering where neither discipline could have achieved the result alone.
5. Describe a situation where your initial design solution didn't work. What did you do?
Context Builder 1.0 provided UI but users lacked confidence
User feedback revealed need for quality gauging
Collaborated with engineering on NLP to reimagine approach
Version 2.0 added natural language input and feedback mechanisms
Context Builder 1.0 gave users the ability to build targeting contexts in the UI with engineering support, which was a step forward from having no interface at all. However, user feedback revealed they weren't confident in what criteria made a good context and had no way to gauge quality before launching campaigns. I conducted ongoing user research to understand their confidence issues, then collaborated with engineering who had developed word embeddings and NLP capabilities to completely reimagine the approach. Context Builder 2.0 streamlined inputs dramatically to a single natural language field and added feedback mechanisms showing both qualitative examples of where ads would appear and quantitative estimations of performance, giving users the confidence they needed to create effective contexts independently.
Category 2: Collaboration & Stakeholder Management
1. Give me an example of a time when you had to convince a product manager or stakeholder to change direction on a design decision.
Pre-sales planning tool iterations struggled to balance detail level
Needed to serve three personas without overwhelming anyone
Iterated layouts, used user feedback when stuck
Challenging each other with user input produced sweeping improvements
While designing the pre-sales planning tool, I worked with an executive director of product and director of research through many iterations trying to balance detail—too few options wouldn't help users enough, but too many would make it as complex as setting up full campaigns. My responsibility was to find the right level of functionality that would serve sales, solution managers, and campaign managers without overwhelming any group. I kept iterating through different approaches—tabs, card layouts, map configurations—and when we got stuck in meetings that ended further from alignment, I initiated user feedback sessions that helped us refocus on what actually mattered to each persona. The three of us challenged each other quite a bit through this process, but looking to users when decisions became contentious resulted in a concept that will provide sweeping improvements across multiple workflow stages.
2. Tell me about a time when you disagreed with an engineer about implementation. How did you resolve it.
Targeting system complexity overwhelming, engineering not acknowledging scope
Worked with lead developer to map entire system
Collaborative mapping revealed complete targeting object solution
Partnership produced 20% setup time reduction, learned to push for full scope earlier
During the targeting system overhaul, I needed to understand how targeting was configured across our entire DSP before proposing solutions, but the complexity was overwhelming and engineering groups weren't initially acknowledging the full scope. I worked directly with our lead front-end developer to map every piece of how targeting worked across all tools, which was tough work that required many challenging conversations. Through this collaborative mapping process, I discovered we could make the targeting object complete instead of scattering settings everywhere, and the developer gained full visibility into the frontend complexity. This deep partnership resulted in unified targeting UI and reusable profiles that cut campaign setup time by 20%, teaching me I should have worked even harder earlier to get all engineering groups to acknowledge the full scope so we could have pushed for a complete overhaul instead of iterations.
3. Describe a situation where you had to work with multiple stakeholders who had conflicting priorities.
Three personas needed different capabilities with no workflow transfer
Designed single tool satisfying all personas and connecting workflows
Facilitated sessions with extensive iterations and user testing
Final design uses flexible approach that works for internal and external users
The pre-sales planning tool needed to serve sales teams presenting proposals, solution managers testing combinations, and campaign managers executing plans—each with different needs at different stages and no existing way to transfer work. My goal was to design a single tool that would satisfy all three personas while connecting their workflows seamlessly from pre-sales through execution. I facilitated sessions with the executive director of product and director of research where we went through extensive iterations mapping the campaign lifecycle, trying different layouts and configurations, and testing concepts with each user group. The final design used a flexible approach with reusable libraries, drawers for details, and channel options users could customize then convert to campaigns, becoming the missing piece that works for internal managed service and external self-service users.
4. Share an example of how you've influenced product decisions without having direct authority.
UX team worked independently, sometimes creating wasted work
Transformed critiques to early collaborative problem-solving
Shift created collective decisions and efficiency
Energy spread to product/engineering, communication became identity
Our UX team had three disciplines working mostly independently, sharing work in critique sessions only when ready to present, which sometimes led to decisions that went against established patterns and created wasted work. I transformed these critique sessions by increasing frequency, focusing on design problems early in the process, and setting the expectation that we'd contribute solutions collectively rather than just critiquing finished work. This shift made design decisions backed by collective knowledge, increased efficiency because decisions were confirmed upfront, and created knowledge coverage across the team as people got comfortable accepting ideas from anyone. The energy spread to product and engineering teams who started approaching problems by engaging cross-functionally sooner and understanding each other's challenges, making effective communication part of our identity rather than just something on a diagram.
5. Tell me about a time when you received critical feedback on your design. How did you respond?
Context Builder 1.0 shipped but users lacked confidence in quality
Addressed confidence gap while engineering developed NLP
Conducted interviews, pushed for qualitative and quantitative feedback
Version 2.0 streamlined inputs and provided confidence mechanisms
After shipping Context Builder 1.0, user feedback showed they could finally build targeting contexts in the UI but weren't confident in what criteria made good contexts and had no metrics to gauge quality. My responsibility was to address this confidence gap while engineering was simultaneously developing word embeddings and NLP capabilities that could transform our approach. I conducted numerous user interviews to understand exactly what information would give them confidence, then pushed engineering to provide insights about created contexts through both qualitative feedback showing top matching URLs and apps plus quantitative estimations of reach and performance. This resulted in Context Builder 2.0 that dramatically streamlined inputs while giving users the confidence they needed, teaching me that critical feedback combined with sustained user engagement inspires the push for maximum value.
Category 3: Technical Collaboration & Design Systems
1. Walk me through your experience maintaining or contributing to a design system.
Codebase was fragmented patchwork out of sync with design
Led initiative coordinating 4 designers and 4 engineers
Evaluated frameworks, chose Mantine, customized for brand/accessibility, phased migration
75% productivity increase, learned to push harder at start
At Vericast, our codebase had become a patchwork of custom styles and third-party libraries out of sync with design files, creating inefficiency and inconsistency across the platform. As Principal Product Designer, I led the initiative to replace this fragmented UI with a modern design system, coordinating four UX designers handling component audit, Figma customization, accessibility, and documentation plus four front-end engineers managing architecture, code accessibility, and Storybook. I evaluated MUI, Ant Design, and Mantine, choosing Mantine for its modularity and documentation, then customized the theme to match our brand while ensuring WCAG standards, phased the migration prioritizing high-impact components, and implemented Storybook for collaborative review before platform integration. This increased front-end developer productivity by 75% and transformed our fragmented UI into a cohesive, accessible, scalable solution, teaching me we could have pushed harder at the start and devoted more resources instead of iterating on tools using the old system.
2. Describe your experience working with engineers during implementation. How do you ensure design fidelity?
Needed engineers to build components matching design intent
Partnered directly using Storybook for collaboration
Technical background enabled informed discussions
Hands-on collaboration produced 75% productivity gains and high fidelity
During the Mantine design system implementation, I needed to ensure the four front-end engineers could build components that matched design intent while remaining technically feasible and performant. I partnered directly with the engineering team throughout the process, using Storybook as our collaboration tool where designers and developers could review, test, and iterate on components before integrating them into the platform. My technical background in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript allowed me to have informed discussions about implementation approaches, understand technical constraints, and design solutions that balanced elegant user experiences with practical development considerations. This hands-on collaboration approach resulted in 75% productivity gains for front-end developers and high design fidelity across the platform, demonstrating that technical fluency strengthens engineering partnerships and enables better solutions.
3. Tell me about a time when technical constraints forced you to change your design approach.
Context Builder originally used rigid category taxonomies
Engineering developed NLP capabilities mid-project
Redesigned to single natural language input leveraging NLP
Technical evolution enabled better UX than original design
Context Builder originally required users to navigate rigid category taxonomies to define targeting contexts, which was complex but technically feasible with our existing infrastructure. When engineering got inspired by the data and developed word embeddings and NLP capabilities, I had the opportunity to completely reimagine the interface around these new technical capabilities. I redesigned from multiple taxonomy inputs to a single natural language field that leveraged the NLP engine, freeing users from rigid structures while dramatically simplifying the interface. This technical evolution enabled a better user experience than my original design could have achieved, teaching me that staying close to what engineering is exploring with emerging technology allows me to design interfaces that leverage new capabilities while solving real user problems.
4. Give me an example of when you had to advocate for design system consistency versus a one-off solution.
Each tool implemented targeting differently with no shared components
Goal was unified UI and reusable profiles across all tools
Made case for unified patterns despite longer initial timeline
20% setup time reduction validated consistency investment
When redesigning the targeting system, I discovered users needed to reuse targeting configurations across pre-sales, campaign setup, and optimization tools, but each tool had implemented targeting differently with no shared components. My goal was to unify the targeting UI and create reusable profiles that would work across all tools, even though building one-off solutions for each tool would have been faster initially. I worked with product and engineering to make the case that unified patterns and reusable objects would reduce long-term maintenance, decrease user confusion, and improve efficiency across all workflow stages. The unified targeting approach with reusable profiles reduced campaign setup time by 20% and established patterns we could extend to other platform areas, validating that consistency investments pay off even when they take longer upfront.
5. How do you balance implementing new features with maintaining design system standards?
Faced tension between shipping features and migrating to Mantine
Coordinated with product to balance immediate needs and long-term health
Phased approach: continued critical work while prioritizing high-impact migrations
Maintained momentum but could have adopted sooner with more resources
During the design system implementation at Vericast, I faced the tension between shipping new features users were requesting and pausing that work to accelerate our migration to Mantine. My responsibility was to coordinate with product owners to find the right balance that would serve both immediate user needs and long-term platform health. I advocated for a phased approach where we continued iterating on critical tools using the old system while prioritizing high-impact components for migration first, including retooling forms to use Mantine's form package for better state management and validation. This approach meant we could have adopted the new system sooner if we'd devoted more resources upfront, but it allowed us to maintain momentum on user requests while systematically improving our foundation, teaching me that balance decisions have trade-offs that should be made transparent to stakeholders.
Category 4: User Research & Data-Driven Design
1. Walk me through a usability testing session you conducted and what you learned from it.
Ad-serving tool had high errors and low satisfaction
Conducted observational research watching user behaviors
Discovered pain points users couldn't articulate verbally
51% error reduction, 21% satisfaction increase, 19% usability increase
For the ad-serving tool that operations staff used to manage thousands of campaigns, I needed to understand why error rates were high and satisfaction was low despite the tool being functional. I conducted comprehensive observational research and usability testing sessions both remotely and in-person, watching users navigate the interface and noting where they hesitated, what instinctive actions they took, and the subtle behaviors that revealed challenges standard feedback might overlook. Through these sessions, I discovered specific pain points around validation, workflow sequencing, and unclear feedback that users struggled to articulate in interviews but exhibited clearly in their actions. My comprehensive iterations addressing these observed behaviors resulted in 51% error rate decrease, 21% satisfaction score increase, and 19% usability score increase, demonstrating how observational research reveals the nuances that verbal feedback often misses.
2. Tell me about a time when user testing results contradicted your assumptions.
Users said they needed more targeting options
Observational research revealed need for reusability and consistency
Redirected to reusable profiles and unified UI
20% setup time reduction by solving actual vs stated problem
When investigating targeting system problems, users told me in interviews they needed more targeting options and additional features to configure campaigns effectively. However, when I conducted observational research watching them actually use the tools, I discovered the real problem wasn't missing options but that they couldn't reuse targeting configurations they'd already created, tools were inconsistent across workflow stages, and estimations were too general to inform decisions. I redirected the entire approach based on these observations, working with engineering to create reusable targeting profiles and unified UI across all tools rather than adding more options. This resulted in 20% reduction in campaign setup time by solving the actual problem rather than the stated problem, teaching me that observational research reveals what users truly need versus what they think they need.
3. Describe how you've incorporated user feedback into your design process.
Conducted interviews over 2 years for Context Builder
Goal was understanding needs and keeping users engaged
Used feedback to push for URL previews, estimations, natural language input
Users inspired continuous improvement resulting in patent-worthy service
During Context Builder development over two years, I conducted numerous user interviews that became necessary not just for gathering insights but for keeping users engaged and showing we were listening to their concerns. My goal was to understand their evolving needs as we developed NLP capabilities and ensure the tool provided maximum value throughout the transformation. I used their feedback to push all aspects of the context builder—when they expressed uncertainty about context quality, I advocated for both qualitative URL previews and quantitative estimations; when they struggled with taxonomy complexity, I pushed engineering to leverage NLP for natural language input. These users inspired me to continuously improve the tool rather than settling for incremental updates, resulting in a patent-worthy backend service and a tool ready for platform-wide integration.
4. Give me an example of how you've used data to inform your design decisions.
Ad-serving tool had high errors and low satisfaction
Used quantitative metrics and qualitative research for iterations
Measured each cycle, validated changes with data
51% error decrease, 21% satisfaction increase, 60% more campaigns serviced
The ad-serving tool at Vericast was functional but had high error rates and low satisfaction scores that were impacting how many campaigns operations staff could service. Through comprehensive iterations informed by both quantitative metrics tracking error patterns and qualitative user research revealing behavioral issues, I redesigned workflows, validation, and feedback mechanisms systematically. I measured the impact of each iteration cycle, using data to validate which changes were working and which needed further refinement. The data-driven approach resulted in 51% decrease in error rates, 21% increase in satisfaction scores, 19% increase in usability scores, and 60% increase in the number of campaigns serviced from 2022-2024, demonstrating how combining quantitative measurement with qualitative understanding produces solutions that deliver measurable business value.
5. Tell me about a time when you identified a problem that others had overlooked.
Clients loved targeting, internal staff hated it
Disconnect hadn't been quantified or addressed
Comprehensive research revealed capability excellence with usability frustration
System overhaul produced 20% reduction, exposed need for product roles
Strategic research at Vericast showed that clients rated our targeting capabilities as a top differentiator for choosing our DSP, but when I started investigating, internal operations staff listed targeting as their biggest complaint. This disconnect hadn't been quantified or addressed because it seemed contradictory—how could our best feature also be our biggest problem? I conducted comprehensive user research and stakeholder interviews across nearly every operational role to understand the gap, discovering that while our targeting capabilities were technically powerful, the tools to configure and manage them were fragmented and inefficient. This research revealed that targeting excellence from a capability perspective and targeting frustration from a usability perspective could coexist, leading to the system overhaul that reduced campaign setup time by 20% and exposed the need for product management roles to coordinate large-scale improvements.
Category 5: Agile, Iteration & Adaptability
1. Describe how you typically work within an agile development process.
Coordinate with teams throughout two-week sprint cycles
Attend standups, planning, retrospectives
Work closely with developers, provide specs through Figma/Storybook
Hands-on collaboration balances strategic and tactical work
At Vericast, I coordinate with product managers and engineering teams throughout two-week sprint cycles, working to maintain alignment between individual efforts and our collective platform goals. I attend daily standups to understand progress and blockers, participate in sprint planning to scope design work appropriately, and join retrospectives to continuously improve our process. During sprints, I work closely with front-end developers on implementation details, provide design specs and assets through Figma and Storybook, and remain available for questions that arise during development to ensure accurate implementation. This hands-on collaborative approach allows me to balance strategic initiatives like the unified platform vision with tactical execution like component updates, while maintaining the flexibility to adjust priorities as business needs evolve.
2. Tell me about a time when you had to iterate quickly based on user feedback or changing requirements.
Context Builder evolved over 2 years with continuous learning
Kept users engaged while responding to feedback and new tech
Conducted interviews, shipped incremental improvements
Sustained iteration produced tool solving actual problems
Context Builder evolved over two years with continuous learning about user needs and emerging technical capabilities, requiring constant iteration and adaptation. My responsibility was to keep users engaged throughout this long development cycle while responding to their feedback and leveraging new NLP technology as it became available. I conducted numerous user interviews that revealed specific confidence issues, then worked with engineering to ship incremental improvements like better estimations and URL previews while planning for more fundamental changes to the input model. This sustained iteration based on real usage patterns resulted in a tool that solved actual user problems rather than assumed ones, teaching me that keeping users involved throughout long cycles produces better outcomes than trying to design everything upfront.
3. Tell me about a time when you had to make design decisions with incomplete information or tight deadlines.
Needed to break through gridlock without complete requirements
Goal was sparking imagination and communicating strategic direction
Designed at right detail level—bold but not prescriptive
Successfully inspired initiatives, balance of detail mattered most
When creating the unified platform vision, I needed to break through organizational gridlock and inspire cross-functional teams without having complete requirements or time for extensive research. My goal was to create a concept that would spark imagination and get people thinking about possibilities while being visual enough to communicate strategic direction. I intentionally designed at the right level of detail—bold and visual enough that people understood this was something new, but vague enough that they'd fill in the blanks with their own expertise rather than seeing it as prescriptive. This approach successfully broke through gridlock and inspired several extra-large initiatives to unify our tools, teaching me that finding the right balance of detail matters more than having complete information when the goal is to drive strategic alignment.
4. Share a situation where you had to ship something that wasn't perfect. How did you decide what was "good enough"?
Context Builder 1.0 provided UI but users lacked confidence
Determined minimum functionality that would provide value
Decided interface was better than engineering support for gathering data
Shipped knowing limitations, used real behavior for version 2.0
Context Builder 1.0 gave users the ability to build targeting contexts in the UI for the first time, but I knew from early feedback they lacked confidence about what made a good context. Rather than delay the launch until we had perfect confidence mechanisms, my responsibility was to determine what minimum functionality would provide value while we continued developing more sophisticated features. I decided that having any interface was better than requiring engineering support for every context, even though users would still need help assessing quality, because it would let us gather real usage data to inform version 2.0. We shipped 1.0 knowing its limitations, then used actual user behavior patterns to design the NLP-powered natural language input and feedback mechanisms in 2.0, teaching me that shipping imperfect solutions to gather real-world insights often produces better outcomes than trying to design perfection in isolation.
5. Tell me about a time when project requirements changed significantly mid-stream. How did you adapt?
Designed Context Builder 1.0 around multiple taxonomy inputs
Engineering developed NLP capabilities mid-project
Pivoted to single natural language input leveraging NLP
Flexibility allowed adapting to emerging capabilities
I designed Context Builder 1.0 around multiple taxonomy inputs that would let users configure targeting contexts systematically, expecting this would be our long-term approach. When engineering got inspired by the data and developed word embeddings and NLP capabilities mid-project, the technical possibilities completely changed what the interface could be. Rather than viewing this as a disruption, I saw an opportunity to fundamentally improve the user experience by pivoting to a single natural language input that leveraged the NLP engine. I redesigned the entire interface around these new capabilities, dramatically simplifying user inputs while improving output quality, demonstrating that staying flexible and close to engineering's technical exploration allows me to adapt designs to leverage emerging capabilities rather than being constrained by original plans.
Category 6: Communication, Strategy & Leadership
1. Tell me about a time when you had to explain a complex design rationale to a non-technical audience.
Fragmented tools needed unification for self-service capabilities
Communicated strategic vision across diverse audiences
Created bold visual prototype showing unified platform possibilities
Visual approach broke gridlock and inspired multiple initiatives
Our platform had fragmented B2B enterprise tools designed for specific roles, which limited capabilities and created divergent patterns, but the business was pushing for self-service capabilities that would require presenting everything as unified. I needed to communicate a strategic vision across the organization—from executives to individual contributors—that would break through gridlock and inspire action without being overly prescriptive. I created a bold, visual concept prototype showing what a unified platform could look like, focusing on normalizing the brand, modernizing the tech stack, stylizing with dark mode and atmosphere, and redistributing functionality to put information and actions in the right places. This visual approach successfully communicated complex strategic direction to non-technical audiences, breaking through organizational gridlock and inspiring multiple extra-large initiatives where people started voicing ideas they'd only shared in side conversations.
2. Describe your ideal working relationship with product managers and engineers.
Collaborate early on problems, not sequential handoffs
Respect expertise while championing good ideas from anywhere
Use technical background for informed feasibility discussions
Best results from collective problem-solving
I promote an empathetic mindset where product, engineering, and design collaborate early on problems rather than handing off requirements sequentially, with each discipline respecting the others' areas of responsibility while championing good ideas regardless of source. My approach is to engage cross-functional teams as soon as challenges arise, understand the constraints each group faces, and use my technical background to have informed discussions about feasibility and trade-offs. I've learned to connect people and ideas by collecting context about the capabilities and constraints of systems and teams, which allows me to influence without authority and clear paths for increased efficiency. The best results come when we approach problems collectively, challenge each other productively, and maintain focus on what matters to users and the business rather than defending disciplinary boundaries.
3. Share an example of how you've grown as a designer in the past year.
After promotion, changed team collaboration patterns
Evolved from executing projects to shaping team culture
Transformed critiques to early feedback forums
Deepened strategic vision while remaining hands-on
After getting promoted to Principal Interaction Designer, I changed how our UX team collaborated by transforming critique sessions into early-stage feedback forums, which improved culture and performance across the organization. My responsibility evolved from executing individual projects to shaping how the entire team worked and influencing cross-functional collaboration patterns. I increased critique frequency, focused on design problems early in the process, and set expectations that we'd contribute solutions collectively, which created knowledge coverage across the team and spread empathetic communication to product and engineering. This experience deepened my ability to create strategic visions like the unified platform concept while remaining hands-on with detailed execution and implementation, teaching me that leadership isn't just about strategy but about cultivating environments where good ideas can come from anywhere.
4. Describe how you typically document your designs for engineering handoff.
Use Figma with detailed annotations for interactions/states/edge cases
Established Storybook as shared documentation platform
Technical background enables code examples and implementation discussions
Comprehensive documentation plus collaboration ensures fidelity
I use Figma with detailed annotations specifying interactions, states, and edge cases, ensuring developers have the information they need without requiring constant clarification. For the design system implementation, I worked with engineering to establish Storybook as our shared documentation platform where components could be reviewed, tested, and iterated before platform integration, creating a single source of truth for both design intent and implementation reality. My technical background in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript allows me to document designs with an understanding of how they'll be built, sometimes providing code examples or discussing implementation approaches directly with developers. This comprehensive documentation approach combined with hands-on collaboration throughout sprints ensures accurate implementation while respecting engineering's time, resulting in high design fidelity and efficient development cycles.
5. What motivates you in your design work?
Connecting people through context about systems and teams
Challenge of understanding complexity and synthesizing solutions
Satisfaction in quantifiable results validating thoughtful design
Most energized when design transforms collaboration
I'm motivated by connecting people and ideas through collecting vast amounts of context about the capabilities and constraints of systems and teams, then applying technical and interpersonal skills to create solutions that measurably improve efficiency. The challenge of understanding complex business processes, technical limitations, and user needs simultaneously—then synthesizing that context into designs that work for everyone—drives me to continuously learn and push for better outcomes. I find satisfaction in quantifiable results like the 75% productivity increase from our design system or 51% error reduction from comprehensive iterations, because they validate that thoughtful design grounded in deep context produces real business value. What energizes me most is when design breaks through organizational gridlock or transforms how teams collaborate, demonstrating that good design isn't just about interfaces but about creating systems where people can do their best work.
Category 7: Domain Expertise & Cultural Fit
1. Do you have experience designing for advertising platforms or ad tech? Tell me about it?
Spent 5 years designing Vericast DSP tools
Created targeting, campaign management, pre-sales, analytics interfaces
Designed for complex ad placement across millions of URLs/apps
Direct DSP experience means understanding unique ad platform challenges
I spent five years at Vericast designing tools for our demand-side platform, which gave me deep experience with programmatic advertising workflows from pre-sales through execution to analytics. My responsibilities included creating targeting systems where users configured audience and contextual parameters, campaign management tools for setting up and optimizing ad delivery, pre-sales planning interfaces for proposal development, and analytics dashboards for performance reporting. I designed solutions for complex ad placement decisions across millions of URLs and apps, understanding the intricacies of bidding strategies, inventory management, budget pacing, and attribution. This direct DSP experience means I understand the unique challenges of advertising platforms—balancing sophisticated targeting capabilities with usability, providing estimations that inform decisions, and creating workflows that serve both managed service operations teams and self-service clients.
2. Tell me about a time when you had to work independently with minimal direction.
Targeting disconnect identified but problem undefined
Took ownership investigating independently across all roles
Mapped system without formal structure or requirements
Independent research led to 20% reduction and identified need for product roles
When strategic research revealed a disconnect between client satisfaction with targeting and internal user complaints, no one had clearly defined the problem or proposed a solution path. I took ownership of investigating the targeting system independently, conducting comprehensive research sessions and stakeholder interviews across nearly every operational role to understand root causes. Without a formal project structure or clear requirements, I mapped how targeting was configured across our entire platform with our lead front-end developer, identifying that users couldn't reuse targeting objects, tools were inconsistent, and the backend didn't match the frontend. My independent research and problem definition led to unified targeting UI and reusable profiles that reduced campaign setup time by 20%, while also exposing the need for product management roles to coordinate large-scale efforts.
3. Tell me about a time when you had to advocate for the user against business pressure.
Pressure to ship minimal targeting solution quickly
User research showed this wouldn't solve confidence problem
Conducted interviews over 2 years showing we were listening
Sustained advocacy produced independently usable tool with better outcomes
During Context Builder development, there was pressure to ship a minimal targeting solution quickly to meet industry shifts away from pixel tracking, but user research showed this wouldn't solve the confidence problem. My responsibility was to keep users engaged over two years while we developed a solution that would actually work for them, even as business pressure mounted to ship something faster. I conducted numerous user interviews throughout the development cycle to show we were listening and to continuously gather insights that would inform the design, which inspired me to push engineering for features like qualitative URL previews and quantitative estimations that provided real value. This sustained advocacy resulted in a tool that users could confidently use independently rather than a minimal solution that would have required ongoing support, teaching me that investing time to understand and solve actual user problems produces better long-term business outcomes than shipping under pressure.
4. Describe a mistake you made in a design project and what you learned from it.
Identified targeting problems and mapped system with developer
Didn't push hard enough for all engineering to acknowledge full scope
Focused on iterations instead of complete rebuild
Learned to advocate strongly for comprehensive solutions upfront
During the targeting system overhaul, I identified problems through comprehensive research and worked with our lead front-end developer to map the entire system, but I didn't push hard enough to get all engineering groups to acknowledge the full scope early in the process. My initial approach focused on proposing iterations that would improve the existing system rather than advocating for a complete rebuild that would have addressed all the root causes simultaneously. While we shipped meaningful improvements that unified targeting UI and reduced campaign setup time by 20%, looking back I wish I'd worked harder at the beginning to get engineering to acknowledge the full scope so we could have pushed for a complete overhaul instead of iterations. This taught me that when research reveals systemic problems, advocating strongly for comprehensive solutions upfront—even when it's uncomfortable—produces better outcomes than accepting incremental approaches that leave some issues unresolved.
5. How have you approached designing for different user types or personas within the same product?
Unified platform needed to serve internal and external users
Designed single platform without forcing workflows on either group
Used flexible patterns: libraries, drawers, progressive disclosure
Approach preserves expert features while enabling self-service
The unified platform vision needed to serve internal managed service users who present proposals and execute complex campaigns plus external self-service users who need intuitive workflows without training or support. My responsibility was to design a single platform that would work for both sophisticated power users and novices without forcing either group into workflows designed for the other. I focused on flexible patterns like libraries for managing reusable objects, drawers for detailed views that power users need without cluttering the interface, and progressive disclosure where basic workflows stayed simple but advanced options remained accessible. This approach created a concept that preserves expert features for internal staff executing managed services while making the platform accessible enough for external clients to use independently, teaching me that designing for multiple personas requires understanding not just what each group needs but how their workflows intersect and where shared patterns can serve everyone.