This is my approach for evaluating new candidates as a first step. For front-end, for instance, I start with a codepen that has the basic skeleton that includes the libraries we use internally, has a few html elements styled and placed, and the required javascript boilerplate.
Then I provide 10 tasks that are written much in the way the company would put tasks in asana or git or jira. Each task builds on the previous and gets more complex. In the boilerplate they start with, there is one obvious error and one subtle one. Each step, I encourage them to write notes on how they solved it, and any questions or concerns they might have. I make myself available via chat or email if they have any clarifying questions.
They then can do it in their own time, at home. They can google, hit up documentation, stackoverflow, etc., because that's exactly how developers work. Nobody's over their shoulder, there's no arbitrary limitations, just build us some good UI code.
It's true that I've been amazed at how many candidates were stopped in their tracks at the simplest things that are well within the domain of their resume. But when I get a candidate that gets through them, hits the requirements and has clean code as a result, I've hardly ever seen them fail at a later step where we might evaluate more complex problems like working around GC slowdowns, obscure browser compatibility, first meaningful paint performance, etc.
And most of all, I feel confident that I haven't tried to "trick" anyone by having them do long-solved algorithms offline on a white board.