The first interview was in person, with several members of the UX team. It was chatty and cordial. I was invited for a second interview and asked to complete a UX task. The task was to present 3 designs for an area of the site behind the member barrier. There was no instruction about the level of fidelity, and the stated purpose of the task was to understand my process. I presented 1 low-fidelity design that was well-supported by the available evidence, as it was enough to explain my process and show how I might apply it to design their product. During the presentation, they did not seem interested in process, they just wanted to see the designs. The Head of UX was visibly annoyed after the presentation. Later I learned that is was because I hadn't followed directions. I believe they were probably looking for a demonstration of UI skills rather than UX process. I was not offered the job, which is fair enough if I was not a fit. However, the interviewer was both dismissive and ungracious in his emailed comments. For my part, I came away from the interview questioning the UX leadership. I was told that Aviva employees nearly 40 UX designers. Even half of that number is shocking considering that the website is a total mess, and does not seem to have benefited from the surplus of designers. In hindsight, I think if the interview criteria gave more weight to the ability to gain insights through user research, and to analyse and structure content that's relevant to user goals, Aviva would see a rapid improvement in the experience of users.