International student
Tour completedApplication sentIncome questions$10K deposit requested
The decisive requirement appeared only after repeated calls and days of waiting.
Zillow Rentals · Independent product redesign
Know what a rental requires before you apply.
A better experience makes missing rental requirements visible and actionable before a renter applies. It does not predict approval or require renters to disclose personal circumstances.
Sawtelle · 18 min to UCLA
$3,990/mo2 bd · 2 ba · 1,100 sqft
Before you applyRequirements are visible earlier
Current experience
A renter can evaluate the home before they can evaluate the application.
The existing journey reveals detailed listing information early. Qualification requirements often arrive only after the renter has already invested time.
Today
01Search
02Open listing
03Tour or apply
04Learn new requirements
05Prepare documents
06Follow up
The problem appears at step 04The renter learns whether the application is practical after committing time, attention, and sometimes money.
The problem
The listing looked right.
The application process did not.
Key documentation rules can appear only after a renter tours, contacts the property, or starts a paid application.
01 Late requirements02 Repeated follow up03 Delayed decisions
New graduate
Offer letterReference requestCompany financialsHome went to another renter
The documentation expectation expanded over a week while another applicant moved faster.
Evidence boundaryFirsthand experiences reveal a credible problem, not its population-wide frequency. Broader prevalence and measured impact still require research.
Opportunity selection
The audit narrowed which problem was worth solving.
Research exposed more than one friction. My initial concept addressed shortlist memory. Before building it, I audited the live product to test whether that opportunity was truly unmet.
Shortlist memory
Help renters remember why they saved each home.
Application transparency
Help renters understand requirements before committing time or money.
Design a Decision Context layer for saved homes.
Compare Homes already organizes the most important objective attributes.
Archive Candidate A and focus the project on Candidate B.
What changed the project
Zillow already solved most of the comparison problem.
Adding Decision Context would ask renters for more input while duplicating an existing workflow. Continuing would mean building for the sake of building.
Final direction
Pre application confidence
Surface the requirements Zillow does not currently make reliably visible.
Why this direction?Addresses a costly renter problemFills information Zillow does not show consistentlyBuilds on tools Zillow already has
Current product gaps
Each concept starts with a specific limitation in today’s experience.
The strategy does not introduce three unrelated ideas. Each change responds to an observed gap while preserving the parts Zillow already does well.
AreaWhat exists todayWhy change itDesign response
Application requirements
Requirement details are inconsistent. One listing may show a credit score or income multiple, while another says nothing about documents, deposits, or review timing.
A renter can spend time touring or pay to apply before discovering a requirement that makes the home impractical.
Require a shared set of property submitted fields and clearly label every item as Disclosed, Partial, or Not disclosed.Clarification
When information is missing, renters must notice the gap, decide what to ask, and write the message themselves.
Critical questions are easy to miss. Renters may also reveal personal circumstances before knowing whether the policy is relevant.
Turn missing information into optional, editable policy questions while keeping personalization private until the renter chooses to send.Commute
Commute controls sit inside expanded Filters and rely on broad assumptions such as rush hour or off peak travel.
A generic estimate can hide whether a home works for the renter’s actual weekday schedule, and that context is lost across the journey.
Add a specific arrival or departure time inside Zillow’s existing filter flow and carry it into results and listing details.Product strategy
Move critical information before commitment.
The redesign combines one core intervention with one supporting improvement, using Zillow’s existing listing, contact, and commute infrastructure.
Application requirements
Properties disclose structured screening and documentation requirements. Zillow distinguishes what is known, partial, and missing.
DisclosedPartialNot disclosed
Optional clarification
Private situation chips surface neutral questions. Renters can edit, close, or send. Nothing is shared automatically.
StudentUsing savingsGuarantor
Commute continuity
A specific weekday schedule carries from search filters to result cards and listing detail.
UCLA · arrive 9:20 AM18 min
Product boundary
Make the decision clearer without making the decision for the renter.
Zillow enablesZillow’s role
Make property submitted requirements easy to find, label missing information consistently, and give renters a safe way to ask follow up questions.
Zillow does not decideNot Zillow’s role
Determine who qualifies, promise approval, verify off platform demands, or infer a renter’s personal situation.
Interactive prototype
Try the redesigned decision moments.
Switch views, review the application requirements, and see how optional personalization changes the question draft.
ZillowBuyRentSellFavorites
Before you request to apply
Application requirements
Information submitted by this property. Missing fields are labeled Not disclosed. Zillow does not predict approval.
5 application details need clarificationYou can review the gaps without answering questions about yourself.
Income requirement3× monthly rentDisclosed
Credit screeningMinimum score700
Current employmentTwo recent pay stubsDisclosed
New employmentOffer letter + recent bank statementDisclosed
Proof of fundsAccepted; minimum balance not providedPartial
Family sponsorshipNo policy providedNot disclosed
GuarantorNo policy providedNot disclosed
Security depositAmount and conditions not providedNot disclosed
Review timelineNo timeline providedNot disclosed
Property application feeAmount disclosed in listing cost details$50 / applicant
Personalize questions (optional)
Select any situations that apply. Your selections stay private.
Prioritization
High value with controlled scope.
The decision considers impact, evidence, effort, strategic fit, and operational dependency together.
Higher impact
Higher effort
Quick winsStrategic bets1Requirements pilotHigh impact · High effort1AClarification supportMedium high · Medium2Commute continuityMedium high · Low mediumArchiveDecision Context
Why each concept landed here01 · Requirements pilot 01A · Clarification support 02 · Commute continuity
Highest consequence and strongest differentiation. Effort is high because properties must supply and maintain the data.
Extends the requirements layer through existing Contact infrastructure. Message quality and renter privacy need validation.
Strong observed evidence and lower implementation effort. It improves an existing capability rather than solving the central unmet need.
Phased rollout
Validate the riskiest dependency before scaling.
Stage 1
Internal validation
Align field definitions with operations, legal, privacy, and fair housing teams.
Stage 2
Limited pilot
Launch with selected Rental Manager partners in one market.
Stage 3
Evaluate and expand
Scale only if renters gain clarity and properties sustain data quality.
Execution plan
Instrument the journey, test the experience, and improve the data.
The launch plan separates product usability from the harder operational question of whether properties will provide accurate information.
Instrument
Track listing exposure, requirement review, question draft, message send, tour request, and application request events.
Purpose: establish the funnel and baseline behavior.Test
Run usability sessions first. Then compare the pilot experience with a matched listing cohort or staged holdout.
Purpose: separate comprehension gains from selection bias.Learn
Review field completion, renter comprehension, property response burden, and reported late requirements every week.
Purpose: improve definitions before expanding supply.Validation approach
Use four methods because the pilot has four different risks.
Read from left to right. Each method answers one question that must be resolved before expansion.
Can renters understand what is known, what is missing, and what to do next?
Can property teams complete the fields accurately without excessive setup work?
Do renters in the pilot encounter fewer late requirements than renters viewing similar listings?
Does the experience create misleading confidence, inappropriate screening, or added support burden?
Measurement
Success means fewer costly surprises.
The pilot needs to prove three things in order: properties can provide usable data, renters understand it, and late requirements decline without creating new harm.
No invented targets
This independent case study does not have Zillow’s baseline data. Numeric launch thresholds should be set with Product, Research, Operations, Legal, and Trust teams after baseline measurement and an onboarding dry run.
What we measureThe share of eligible pilot listings with every core requirement field completed.
How we judge successEstablish the baseline during onboarding. Expand only if completion remains consistently above the agreed operating threshold.
SourceListing setup dataWhat we measureThe share of renters who correctly identify what is known, what is missing, and their next step.
How we judge successCompare against the current experience. Look for a clear, repeatable improvement across usability rounds.
SourceUsability tasks and surveyWhat we measureThe share of application starters who discover a new document or financial requirement after contacting the property.
How we judge successCompare with similar non pilot listings. Expand only when the rate moves down consistently across multiple weeks.
SourceFollow up surveyWhat we monitorDiscrimination reports, misleading confidence, listing abandonment, message volume, and property support time.
How we judge successSet no regression limits from historical ranges. Any material safety or fairness signal pauses expansion.
SourceTrust, funnel, and support dataDecision frameworkPilot decision rules
Metrics matter only when they change what the team does next.
Expand
All three primary measures improve beyond the agreed thresholds, and guardrails remain within their historical range.
Iterate
Clarity improves, but listing completion or late surprises do not. Fix the weakest field or workflow, then run another pilot cycle.
Stop
The experience increases harmful screening, misleading confidence, listing abandonment, or support burden.
Reflection
Good product work survives being wrong.
The project became stronger when the original centerpiece was invalidated by product discovery. Instead of defending the concept, I archived it and redirected the work toward a narrower problem with higher incremental value.
Core takeawayAudit the existing product deeply enough to earn the right to redesign it.