I applied online. The process took two weeks.

The initial call with the recruiter was great. He explained the whole process very clearly and made it clear he was available for questions throughout. The take-home challenge seemed very straightforward and easy to complete at first. However, during the review call, the interviewer seemed to penalise me quite heavily for my interpretation of the UI (which was based on a static PNG) and for not implementing accessibility features, which were never mentioned in the brief.

What I liked: The recruiter and team members were friendly and communicative throughout. The challenge had the potential to reflect real-world work and prioritisation under constraints.

Where the process fell short: The brief asked candidates to "add the missing features shown in the enclosed specification, fixing any bugs you might come across and prioritising as you see fit," and to describe what they would improve with more time. I followed those instructions carefully, but the feedback I received did not seem to align with the written expectations.

Contrast issue: The design showed white text directly on images. I implemented it exactly as shown, and in my README I suggested improving it (for example, by using a dark overlay or repositioning the text). Despite this, I was penalised, which felt inconsistent with the instruction to follow the spec.

Favourites toolbar positioning: I placed the "Favourites" action at the bottom, exactly as it appeared in the PDF design. There was no indication of a toolbar or any alternative UI approach. I mentioned during the call that I might revisit it with more time, but I remained faithful to the visual spec as instructed.

Accessibility and pagination: These were not mentioned anywhere in the brief. While I completely agree they are important, if they are going to be used as evaluation criteria, it would be much fairer to include them in the instructions so candidates can allocate time accordingly.

Takeaway: The task appeared open-ended but was assessed against criteria that were not disclosed. If Monzo expects specific UX standards or accessibility considerations, those expectations should be clearly outlined in the brief. That would be a much fairer and more realistic reflection of real-world development work. I appreciated the opportunity to speak with the team and learn more about the company, but I left the process feeling like I was being judged on criteria that were never communicated rather than on my ability to deliver quality work within a defined scope.

What is your definition of shippable?

1. Answer