admin
d5f00b7115
gates / gates (push) Successful in 7m2s
Recorded in CONTEXT.md as a dated ruling and at the top of the comparison. Nothing deleted: /preview/, /preview/m1/ and /preview/m2/ all stay up, hidden, so the next direction can be compared against them. Nothing built: SHARED-DESIGN.md recommended the canonical-stylesheet-plus-gate mechanism only once a direction exists, and none does, so it stays unbuilt. The measured case for a mechanism rather than a convention survives the ruling and is kept in the audit folder: a component copy between the repos silently dropped a bare body rule and broke the phone layout in four measurable ways.
97 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
97 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
# Three directions for the website, side by side
|
|
|
|
> **OPERATOR RULING, 2026-10-11: none of the three.** A new direction, **M3**, will be briefed
|
|
> separately. All three below stay up, hidden, so M3 can be compared against them. Nothing was
|
|
> deleted, nothing was built, and the shared-design mechanism stays unbuilt (`SHARED-DESIGN.md` §3
|
|
> recommended building it only once a direction exists).
|
|
|
|
Built 2026-10-11. **Nothing here is live.** All three are hidden under `/preview/`, carry
|
|
`noindex`, are blocked by `robots.txt`, are in no sitemap and are linked from no live page.
|
|
|
|
| | address |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| **A — the current redesign** | <https://felhom.eu/preview/> |
|
|
| **M1 — the site is the dashboard** | <https://felhom.eu/preview/m1/> |
|
|
| **M2 — hybrid** | <https://felhom.eu/preview/m2/> |
|
|
|
|
Screenshots: `shots/`. Desktop at 1440 px, phone at 390 px, all from the deployed pages.
|
|
|
|
## Measured, same method for all three
|
|
|
|
| | A, current preview | M1, dashboard | M2, hybrid |
|
|
|---|---:|---:|---:|
|
|
| Requests, first load | 12 | **68** | 16 |
|
|
| Weight, first load | 270 KB | **1 012 KB** | **150 KB** |
|
|
| HTML document alone | 26 KB | **134 KB** | 13 KB |
|
|
| Front page height, 1440 px | 6 385 px | **1 660 px** | 1 853 px |
|
|
| Front page height, 390 px | 10 145 px | 6 563 px | **3 057 px** |
|
|
| Third-party hosts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| Horizontal overflow at 390 px | none | none | none |
|
|
|
|
M1's catalogue page (`alkalmazasok.html`) is **26 410 px tall on a phone** — 58 cards in one column.
|
|
That is its worst measured number and it is not easily fixable while the page's job is "show the
|
|
whole catalogue".
|
|
|
|
## M1 — the site is the dashboard
|
|
|
|
**What it does well.** A visitor sees the actual product in the first second, with 58 real apps, real
|
|
logos, real Hungarian taglines and a real screenshot behind every tile. Nothing on the page is a
|
|
promise about the product; the page *is* the product. It also makes the apps page genuinely useful
|
|
rather than a wall of names: every tile opens what that app does for a family and how to start it.
|
|
|
|
**What can go wrong.** A non-technical visitor can read a full-screen dashboard as *somebody else's
|
|
account* and look for a login — the brief's own worry, and I think it is the real risk. The welcome
|
|
card is the only thing saying "this is a demonstration, look around", and one card is thin defence.
|
|
The second risk is weight: **1 MB and 68 requests** on a site that compresses nothing (R-931), four
|
|
times the current preview, because the front page is 58 logos. The third is SEO: the front page's
|
|
text is a welcome card and 58 app names; the sentences Google currently ranks would have to live
|
|
somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
**What it would cost to finish.** The largest of the three. Six pages exist as studies and all six
|
|
need real design passes; the English twin set does not exist at all and this is the layout where
|
|
twinning is most work (every app panel doubles). The catalogue page needs a different phone answer.
|
|
The shared-design mechanism in `SHARED-DESIGN.md` §3(a) stops being optional. Call it several
|
|
sessions, and it changes what the website *is*, so the SEO baseline needs deliberate re-planning
|
|
rather than preservation.
|
|
|
|
## M2 — hybrid
|
|
|
|
**What it does well.** It is the lightest of the three by a clear margin — **150 KB over 16
|
|
requests**, and the shortest phone page at 3 057 px — while still showing the real dashboard in the
|
|
first screen, inside a window frame that reads unmistakably as "a picture of an application" rather
|
|
than "you are logged in". It keeps the website's own voice and structure, so the SEO work already
|
|
done survives, and it needs no new twin pattern.
|
|
|
|
**What can go wrong.** The window is a smaller promise than M1's: four tiles, not the real thing, so
|
|
it shows the product without quite letting a visitor *use* it. It is also the least distinctive of
|
|
the three — a hero beside a product shot is a normal landing page, which is exactly the charge the
|
|
current home page was redesigned to escape. And the window risks reading as a static image unless
|
|
the "click a tile" invitation is obvious.
|
|
|
|
**What it would cost to finish.** The smallest. It is one page plus its English twin, built out of
|
|
components that now exist, and it can borrow the current preview's lower sections nearly as they are.
|
|
One session, maybe two with the twin.
|
|
|
|
## A — the current redesign, for reference
|
|
|
|
Already written up in `audits/redesign-2026-10-10/`. It is the safest of the three, keeps every SEO
|
|
string, and is the only one with its "Ki áll mögötte" question already settled. Its weakness is the
|
|
one that started this: it still reads as *a website about a product* rather than the product.
|
|
|
|
## What I would say if asked
|
|
|
|
**M2 is the better bet, and M1 is the better idea.** M2 costs least, risks least, and keeps
|
|
everything already decided. M1 is the only one of the three that answers the original complaint
|
|
completely — but it is a different website, with a different SEO story, four times the weight, and a
|
|
real chance a visitor mistakes it for a login page.
|
|
|
|
If the appeal of M1 is "show the real thing immediately", **M2 already delivers most of that for a
|
|
fifth of the cost**, and the honest way to find out whether M1's risk is real is to put M1 in front
|
|
of two or three people who are not Viktor and watch whether they look for a password field.
|
|
|
|
## The register
|
|
|
|
Nothing here is filed yet. If a direction is chosen, the work to build it becomes rows; if M1 is
|
|
rejected, `website/preview/m1/`, `website/preview/m2/`, `website/preview/mockup.css` and the
|
|
`MOCKUPS` set in `scripts/site_gates.py` are deleted together.
|