VIEWS Frontend Engineer Interview: Questions & Prep (2026)

VIEWS has 40 open Frontend Engineer roles as of July 2026 per knok jobradar, making it one of the more active hirers in this space right now. Candidates report a process that typically runs 3-4 rounds: an initial HR or recruiter screen, a hands-on coding round (take-home or live), a technical discussion covering JavaScript depth and component architecture, and a final round with a senior engineer or hiring manager. The focus is practical, so expect to write real code and explain your reasoning, not just recite definitions.

Frontend Engineer salary ranges across the market:

These figures align with publicly reported ranges on Glassdoor and levels.fyi for similar roles in India.

Questions candidates report seeing at VIEWS Frontend Engineer interviews. Prepare solid answers for all of these before your call.

1. Walk me through how a browser renders a web page from the moment a URL is entered.
2. How do you identify and fix performance problems in a React application?
3. What is the difference between useEffect and useLayoutEffect, and when do you use each?
4. How would you build a reusable component library for a large product team?
5. Tell me about a critical UI bug you fixed in production. What was your process?
6. How do you approach accessibility in your day-to-day frontend work?
7. How do you decide between local state, React Context, and a state management library like Redux or Zustand?
8. How do you handle API errors and loading states to keep the user experience smooth?
9. Tell me about a time you disagreed with a design or product decision. How did you handle it?
10. How do you keep a frontend codebase maintainable as it grows?
11. Have you worked with micro-frontends or module federation? Walk me through what you built.
12. How do you measure and improve Core Web Vitals on a live product?

Q: How do you identify and fix performance problems in a React application?

*Situation:* At my previous company, the main dashboard was noticeably slow and users were leaving the page before the data finished loading.

*Task:* I was asked to investigate and improve the experience without a full rewrite.

*Action:* I started by profiling with React DevTools and Chrome's Performance tab. I found that several list components were re-rendering on every parent state change because new object references were being passed on each render. I wrapped the affected components with React.memo, stabilised props using useMemo and useCallback, and lazy-loaded a large charting library that was not needed on first paint.

*Result:* The dashboard loaded noticeably faster. Users could see their data much sooner, and the team adopted these patterns as a coding standard going forward.

---

Q: Describe a time you fixed a critical UI bug in production.

*Situation:* After a routine release, the checkout button stopped responding for a subset of users on older Safari versions.

*Task:* I needed to find the root cause and ship a fix with minimal downtime.

*Action:* I reproduced the issue in a Safari environment, checked the console, and found that optional chaining syntax we had recently introduced was not being transpiled correctly for the affected browsers. I updated our Babel config to cover the missing browser targets, verified the fix locally, added a regression test, and coordinated a hotfix deployment with the team.

*Result:* The fix was live within a few hours. We also added a browser compatibility check to our CI pipeline so the same class of issue would be caught before reaching production again.

---

Q: Tell me about a time you disagreed with a design decision.

*Situation:* The design team proposed a multi-step modal flow for a form users needed to fill out frequently. I felt the extra steps created unnecessary friction.

*Task:* I had to raise the concern constructively without blocking the team or dismissing their work.

*Action:* I referenced publicly reported usability findings on multi-step modal abandonment, built a quick prototype of a single-step alternative, and shared it in the design review as an option rather than a rejection of their approach.

*Result:* The team agreed to test both versions. The single-step design became the default, and the experience improved how design and engineering collaborated on future flows.

For behavioral questions, use STAR: Situation (brief context), Task (what you were responsible for), Action (what you specifically did, not the team), Result (what changed because of your actions). Keep Situation and Task short. Spend most of your answer on Action and Result.

For live coding rounds, follow four steps. First, clarify requirements before writing anything. Second, think out loud as you design your approach. Third, write clean, readable code. Fourth, review your own solution and flag edge cases or trade-offs proactively.

For system or component design questions, start with the user problem, then move to the component tree or data flow, then address performance, accessibility, and extensibility. Interviewers want to see you think about the full picture, not just the happy path.

For 'tell me about a time' questions, pick examples from real work where you owned the outcome. Avoid examples where the team did everything and you observed. If you are earlier in your career, examples from personal projects or open-source contributions are perfectly acceptable.

JavaScript fundamentals matter more than framework knowledge. Interviewers want to know you understand how the language works, not just how to call React's API. Expect questions on closures, the event loop, prototypes, and how this behaves in different contexts.

Product thinking is valued alongside technical skill. Candidates who can explain why they made a UI decision, not just how, tend to stand out. Frame your answers around the user impact, not just the implementation detail.

Clear communication under pressure. Live coding rounds are partly a test of how you think when you do not immediately know the answer. Talking through your reasoning, naming trade-offs, and asking clarifying questions all signal that you will be a good collaborator on a real team.

Accessibility and performance are not afterthoughts. Interviewers notice when candidates treat these as optional extras. Weave them into your answers naturally from the start, rather than mentioning them at the end.

Ownership of past work. In behavioral rounds, interviewers want to hear 'I did X,' not 'we did X.' Take clear ownership of the specific contributions you made.

Week 1: Core JavaScript and React depth
Revisit closures, the event loop, promises, and async/await until you can explain each one out loud without notes. Review React hooks in depth, especially useEffect dependency arrays, custom hooks, and how reconciliation works.

Week 2: Performance and system design
Practise profiling a React app with DevTools. Study Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP) and the techniques that improve each metric. Work through two or three component design problems end-to-end, talking aloud as you build.

Week 3: Behavioral prep and mock interviews
Write out STAR answers to the questions listed in the section above. Run at least two mock interviews with a peer or out loud to yourself. Identify where your answers run too long or lack a clear Result.

Ongoing: Stay hands-on
If you have time, build or polish a small project you can walk through in the interview. Being able to point to real code you wrote makes your answers more credible and gives the interviewer something concrete to discuss.

1. Jumping into code without clarifying requirements. Interviewers almost always leave some ambiguity in the problem on purpose. Take a minute to ask questions before you start typing.

1. Knowing the framework but not the language. If you can use React but cannot explain what a closure is or how the event loop works, expect the interviewer to keep digging until they find your limit.

1. Generic behavioral answers. Saying 'we always worked collaboratively' is not an answer. Give a specific situation with a specific outcome. Interviewers can tell when an answer is rehearsed but empty.

1. Treating accessibility as optional. Adding 'and I would also make it accessible' at the very end of a technical answer does not land well. Weave it in from the start.

1. Not having questions for the interviewer. Asking nothing at the end signals low interest. Prepare two or three genuine questions about the team, the product, or how frontend decisions get made.

1. Underestimating the culture or values round. The final round at most product companies is not a formality. Prepare for it as seriously as you would a technical round.