I'll definitely take some mental notes for when I set up my new landing page in a month or too!
I vaguely recall that it was of a form like [Adjective] [City], where [City] was something kind of unexpected (having to do with some art movement in the past).
(My brain was turning up Chicago, which I knew wasn't right. I note that Chicago and Memphis are both names for fonts... but I bet any large city has a font named for it, so perhaps that's just rubbish.)
The doodle has character. The corporate illustration looks like it's either a component of an extremely generic free landing page template, or the product of a very jaded, overworked designer churning out rehashed versions of the same pastel vectors they took from an image stock site 5 times a day.
The rest of the bullets in the article are overused rules blindly followed over the years to ensure no website is differentiable from the last.
Above-the-fold is such a well-known myth it's been used for decades now by middle-managers with 5-minutes-reading-wikipedia design experience to bully designers and developers alike into cramming as much content into an artificial letterbox as possible.
Just pay a designer.
(If you genuinely can't, then use a template; it won't give you anything worse than following this article would)
It is not clear whether we are talking purely about design or also the implementation, which can be another world of pain. I am a very experienced (mainly backend) developer but even some simple front-end tasks like understanding why something isn't aligning as expected take me a long time.
Just pay someone to deliver you the HTML or buy off-the-shelf. Nowadays, you can get something decent from somewhere like Envata for $20!
It shows you how to put together a minimalist landing page including deriving your features and benefits. Has some templates and checklist.
If not knowing what a CTA is is what confused you, then no, it’s not bad design, just bad targeting—you’re not in the target audience for this article right now. Not that you couldn’t be or that you wouldn’t benefit from knowing what it says, but it does require a certain (if minimal) amount of web marketing context to understand.
(That said, I didn’t find the article particularly insightful, but that’s because I don’t much care for or about the goals it concerns—a different way of being out of the target audience.)
Hard disagree, especially for "any site". Hacker News for example uses 12px text and is perfectly readable - if it isn't for you then you shuold be using some form of display scaling instead of wasting everyone else's screen space.
Nevermind 16 or 12, fixed size is to be avoided, from 2010: https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
What is your monitor size, resolution and view distance and do you use any display scaling?
> Nevermind 16 or 12, fixed size is to be avoided, from 2010: https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
I agree that using user preferences is a good idea - however then the body text should be always 100% of the user set font size, never > 100%.
The second best option is to have all sites use a consistent fixed size, and that will necessarily have to be the same as the default browser font size and the common font size of older websites - it can't change just because the average pixel has gotten smaller. Then you can get your desired font size setting a default zoom option.
You're right, saying "16px minimum for all sites" was wrong. I have no idea where I heard the phrase "16px is minimum for accessibility", but I guess that just stuck in my head, and since I even found similar sayings in other sources, I took it to be true.
So umm, fake news I guess?
I revised the article to clarify that and left links that go into more detail on font size.
Thanks again. I appreciate everyone voicing their opinions.
(And then I dislike it when the window gets narrow enough that the mobile styles kick in, which boost the font size a bit.)
If you're building a software product, just use Wordpress and a nice template for the marketing pages. It's basically never worth your time to build them yourself.