Applicants redesign

Three ways to choose who covers a job

The applicants dialog asks the agent to choose between three people, but it lays them out as a reading list. Below: the dialog as it ships, then three redesigns built on the app's tokens with the same demo job and the same three applicants. Each one keeps everything the current dialog shows, including the activity feed, and only changes where things go and how much room they get. A checklist after the mocks shows where each piece ends up.

Wednesday, September 30, 2026Demo data, Dana WhitfieldApplicationsDialog.tsx on the Desk

What the dialog gets wrong

Everything it shows is worth keeping, but the layout fights it. The activity feed is squeezed into a narrow column and cut off after two lines, the button stack sits in a different pane from the person it acts on, and half the right pane is empty. None of the three things that separate Nia, Erik and Jordan get any emphasis. Nia's note asks you to move the second showing. Jordan's note says Thursday, and the job is on Friday. Erik is the only one who asks for nothing. You find that out by reading every quote closely, and the fact that Jordan has the wrong day isn't flagged anywhere.

Every direction keeps all of it and fixes these four things before they start to differ:

The job's facts get out of the column. $95 "what you posted it at", When, For and Where stay word for word. They move to a strip or a tighter block, so the left pane is no longer full.

A note that asks for a change gets flagged. If the note names a time or day that isn't the job's, it gets a warm chip: "Wants the second showing at 11:45" or "Says Thursday. The job is Friday." A note that asks for nothing gets a green "Takes it as posted".

The activity feed gets real room. The same events, newest first, with timestamps. It moves from a 200px column with its own scrollbar to a full-height rail, or to the space the button stack gives up.

The buttons sit next to the person they act on. Book Nia, Counter Nia and Reject Nia keep their names. Reject still asks for a reason, and Reject all stays a text link at the bottom.

Everything from the current dialog, and where it goes

Nothing is dropped. The flag chips are the only new thing, and they're computed from the note.

In the current dialog	A · The Compare	B · The Pick	C · The Thread
Home showings · 3 waiting	Header	Header	Top of the left pane
Title and "3 people applied · sorted by fit, then price"	Header	Header	Left pane, above the applicants
$95, "what you posted it at"	First cell of the facts strip	First cell of the facts strip	Left pane, under the title
When, For, Where	Facts strip	Facts strip	Left pane; one line on a phone
Activity feed, newest first, quotes and timestamps	Full-height rail on the right	Rail on the right	Left pane under the applicants, plus system lines in each thread
"Selected: Nia Caldwell, $95, at your price."	Footer bar	The Selected block itself	Top of the thread
Book / Counter / Reject, named	Under the selected column	Under the selected person	Counter and Reject at the top of the thread, Book in the composer
Waiting on you · 3	Top-left of the grid	"Waiting on you · 2 more" under the selected person	Label above the applicants
Avatar, name (links to profile), brokerage	Column head	Selected block and each row	Inbox row and thread header
Rating, reviews, applied time	A row each	Under the name	Thread header
Price and "At your price" / "$15 above your $95"	Asking row	Right side of each person	Inbox row and thread header
Their note, in full	Their note row	Selected block, plus a flag on each row	First message in the thread
Reject all 3 and keep the post open	Footer bar	Footer bar	Bottom of the left pane
Close (X)	Top right	Top right	Top right
Hidden states: Decided list, Set the time box, "cannot be booked yet", "You countered · waiting on them"	Same components and wording in all three. Decided goes below Waiting on you, Set the time goes above the applicants, and the other two appear as notes on that person.

Side by side

	Current	A · The Compare	B · The Pick	C · The Thread
What it answers	Who applied?	How do they stack up?	Who should I book?	What do I need to settle with them?
Time to book the obvious one	Read three quotes, then look left	Scan across the Changes row	One click, it opens on them	Pick from the inbox, then book
Where the changes show	Buried in the quote	A row of their own	The reason each person came second	A flag under the message, with quick replies
Scales to	About 5 before it scrolls	3 or 4 columns, then a deck	Any number, the others are one line each	Any number, it's an inbox
Phone	Facts on top, stack pinned	Swipe deck, footer pinned	Same order, footer pinned	Inbox, then a full-screen thread
Activity feed	200px column, quotes cut off, own scrollbar	Full-height rail	Rail beside the list	Left pane, plus inside each thread
New data		None, only the flag rule	The flag rule and the fit rule	The flag rule, plus messages before booking
Cost		New layout inside the dialog; the Desk shell is replaced	Smallest; one column, the existing mutations	Largest; job_messages policies and realtime open to applicants

Where I would land

B · The PickRecommended

Most posts have one clear answer, and B opens on it. The activity rail sits right beside the choice. It's the cheapest of the three to build, it works the same at every width, and it fixes the sort. The top spot goes to the person who asks for nothing, instead of to whoever has the higher rating.

C · The ThreadNext, when negotiation grows

Counters and reject reasons already exist, and messaging exists once a job is booked. C moves that conversation earlier, to before the booking. Build it as the second step of B: a Message button on any alternative opens the thread.

A · The CompareOnly for busy posts

It's the most honest way to lay things out when the choice really is close, but it stops working past four people. It fits best as a "Compare all" link in B once a post has three or more applicants who ask for no changes.

What it takes

The change flag starts as a rule. It finds weekday names and clock times in the note and compares them with the job's date and times. Later, the apply dialog could get an optional "Suggest a different time" field, so the flag no longer depends on parsing the note.
The Thread needs job_messages opened to a pending applicant and the poster, which means new policies. The private files bucket stays limited to the booking party.

Open questions

Should best fit rank "asks for nothing" above rating? B assumes yes, so Erik comes out ahead of Nia. If rating should win, Nia is the pick and her flag shows in the top block.
Should a post say "licensed agent required"? The Chapel Hill description says the seller asked for one, and Jordan's profile says transaction coordinator. If the post had a field for it, the rows could show a license check.
The demo job disagrees with itself. Its description says "double-booked Thursday", but it's dated Friday, October 2. That's probably why Jordan's note says Thursday. The demo description should be fixed either way.

Three ways to choose who covers a job

What the dialog gets wrong

Current · as it ships

Direction A · The Compare

Direction B · The Pick

Direction C · The Thread

Everything from the current dialog, and where it goes

Side by side

Where I would land

What it takes

Open questions