I had an initial chat with a recruiter, and then I was given a choice between a take-home task or a live coding round. I decided to do the take home task, and the recommended time to spend on it was two hours. So, I time-boxed two hours for the task, but I already knew I wouldn't get very far in two hours when I looked at the requirements. There are three things they want you to do in the take home project, and I would be surprised if anyone managed to complete all three things to a good standard in a two hour window. More so, I sense that there was an emphasis on CSS styling, but they left it quite open ended so that “you could show your creativity”. This was a bit of a red flag, because most of the time you would be using designs from UX, and creativity is very subjective. For example, I found the examples they gave as "inspiration" impractical and distracting for user experience. Anyway, I spent two hours on the task and no more, then submitted my changes to the recruiter. Feedback was quick tbf, and I heard back the next day. I was not surprised to see that they wanted a lot more than I had done, and I can only imagine the candidates who impressed them must have spent much more than two hours on the task. For a company that prides themselves for having a good engineering culture, I was surprised that they fell into the common trap of underestimating the time taken for take-home tests. Are they testing technical competency or how long a candidate is willing to spend on the task? Overall, not a great experience, the pay on offer was also about average.