I recently interviewed for a Frontend Developer role. The first round focused on JavaScript and React, while the second round involved a live coding task where I was asked to build a carousel. During the session, I was also presented with several JavaScript output-based questions, which I felt confident in answering. Towards the end of the interview, I was asked how I would implement pagination—both infinite scrolling and numbered pagination. I explained multiple approaches, covering aspects such as state management, dynamic data loading, and overall user experience. However, when I requested feedback, I was told that my “basics are weak” and was also criticized for not considering accessibility—for example, how someone who is visually impaired would interact with the pagination component. While I deeply value the importance of accessibility and strongly believe in creating inclusive digital experiences, I was genuinely surprised by this feedback. Accessibility was never mentioned as a specific focus during the task. Had it been indicated as a requirement, I would have gladly addressed how to implement features like ARIA roles, keyboard navigation, and screen reader support. As an engineer, I take accessibility seriously and care about building solutions that work for everyone. It was disheartening to be judged as lacking in this area simply because it wasn't part of my default explanation—especially without any indication that accessibility was being evaluated. This experience reflects a broader concern: candidates should be evaluated based on clearly communicated expectations. Interviewers should provide guidance and context to enable fair assessments. When feedback is based on assumptions rather than what was actually asked or discussed, it risks overlooking capable and thoughtful developers. Transparent and constructive interviews not only help candidates grow—they also strengthen the company’s reputation and ability to attract great talent.