GenerationAI homepage concepts v0.1 · for review, not the live site

Website rebuild · W32

Three homepage concepts

Each concept tells the same story to the same reader and asks for the same thing: a conversation. They differ in how they look, what they lead with and how much they move. Pick the direction, not the details.

v0.1, 10 October 2026. All copy is draft and nothing here is approved. Placeholders are marked where a photo, example or claim is still needed.

  1. Concept A: Direct and restrained

    A busy leader trusts plain words, clear hierarchy and a few strong photographs more than visual effects.

    Navigable: home, governance, about and contact pages

    Why it looks like this
    • The homepage follows the questions a referred leader asks in order: is this my situation, what changes, how do you help, can I trust you, how do I start. Each section answers one question and stops.
    • Type, white space and a few real photographs carry the page, so reviewers judge the words. Deep navy on off-white throughout, Brand Blue for small accents, and Electric Yellow and Coral only on solid navy panels for warmth.
    • Governance gets the one full-width navy band, in the middle of the homepage between how we help and the people. That makes it prominent and framed as what lets work go ahead, without letting it define the business.
    • Nothing moves on its own: no scroll reveals or animation, the same menu on every page and one clear action, Talk to us. The pages are complete without JavaScript and calmer for neurodiverse readers.
    • Departures from the suggested flow: the hero uses the fuller sub line (subA) because it says what we actually do, the Our thinking block is left out so nothing competes with Talk to us, and the team appears as one colour set framed the same way.
    Gaps and draft claims (18)
    • All copy is draft. Lines from the shared deck are unapproved; lines in a-copy.ts (inner page titles and descriptions, the governance page framing, why we exist, contact form wording) are agent drafts needing review.
    • The headline "Prove what it does for your business" implies we can show results. The page has no approved client example yet to back it.
    • Placeholder on the homepage: client example, which needs a real engagement with an approved public description of what changed and how it was judged.
    • Placeholder on the governance page: a short, approved example of governance in a client business.
    • Placeholder on the About page: photo of a partner running a session with a client team, in their workplace.
    • "Three questions we answer for every engagement" is a commitment about every engagement. Confirm it is how the work is run before publishing.
    • The four step definitions (Plan, Govern, Execute, Sustain) are agent drafts; Belinda's definitions and product mapping (W26) are still open.
    • The governance offer must stay at design and build plus helping people run it. The agent-supported part is a proof of concept, so nothing here may imply a hosted, certified or subscription service.
    • "Better work today" and "Capability the business keeps" come from the v5 paper and were not tested on Friday.
    • Belinda to review her bio, including naming former employers (SkyCity Entertainment Group, Real Estate Institute of New Zealand).
    • Bio claims for Mark (NZX listing, more than 25 years) and John (more than 20 years, advisory boards) need a currency check.
    • Consent for public use of every team photo is still to confirm, including Belinda's supplied portrait and Eva Trebilco, who appears in the table shots but not in the team list (whether she joins it is open).
    • Caleb has no colour portrait to match the others, so his frame is cropped from the working shot that also leads the homepage. The crop is soft at the bottom and repeats that photo.
    • The About page table photo has a tissue box on the table. A wide crop keeps it almost out of frame; a cleaner frame or retouch is worth considering.
    • Darryl Burn and Wendy Wang CA quotes and headshots are used under the November 2025 consents. Darryl's "supercharging" is client wording our voice rules would avoid.
    • The client headshots are copied into the concept A folder so they can be resized. If a headshot changes in public/images, the copy must change too.
    • The contact form is a switched-off concept with no back end. Whether the live site has a form at all is open.
    • Team representation is open: which people appear on the site, in what order, and with which roles.
    Open concept A

  2. Concept B: Human and story-led

    Seeing the people and following one recognisable problem to its change builds trust faster than a list of services.

    Homepage only. Menu links open concept A's inner pages

    Why it looks like this
    • The team is seen first. The hero is a large photo of Caleb and Mark at work, named under the photo, on a solid navy panel, so the reader meets people before services. Colour portraits of the partners carry the "who you work with" chapter.
    • The page reads as one story in eight short chapters, from the situation a leader recognises to a conversation. A thin thread and a one-line bridge carry the reader from each chapter to the next.
    • One clearly labelled illustration, a leadership team where a few people use AI and the rest wait, runs through every step, so the four steps read as what happens next rather than a menu.
    • Governance is the turning point of the story, not a compliance section: the full-width navy chapter "Room to act" is where the waiting people find out what they can do.
    • Warmth comes from real photos and solid navy panels with coral and yellow accents (never coral on white). The structure is predictable and labelled, and the only motion is a gentle rise as a chapter scrolls in; nothing moves on its own, and it is off for reduced motion and without scripts.
    Gaps and draft claims (14)
    • All wording is draft. Chapter labels, bridging lines, the illustration and the "Do the work together. Keep it working." heading are new agent drafts (b-copy.ts); the rest is the shared deck.
    • The leadership team illustration is a composite written for this page and is labelled on screen as "not a client story". Confirm the partners are comfortable telling the story this way.
    • Placeholder: a real client example with approval to describe it publicly (chapter 7). This is the only placeholder on the page.
    • Belinda to review her bio, including naming former employers (SkyCity Entertainment Group and the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand). Her role, Consulting Partner, is taken from the Consulting Delivery workspace record.
    • Photo consent and crops are still to confirm for everyone pictured: Mark, John, Belinda and Caleb, and Eva Trebilco, who appears (named in the alt text) in the two table photos but is not a team card while her place in the team list is open.
    • Caleb has no colour seated portrait, so his card uses the black and white bio portrait and the four portraits do not fully match. A crop of the hero photo was tried and rejected because Mark is in the frame.
    • The working photos show our own team in our office, not client work. They carry no caption that says otherwise.
    • Draft claims to verify: "Most leaders we talk to recognise at least one of these", "Every engagement follows the same shape", "Three questions we answer for every engagement" and the partner bios (years of experience, NZX listing, boards chaired, former roles) need a currency check.
    • The phase definitions under Plan, Govern, Execute and Sustain are agent drafts; Belinda's definitions and mapping (W26) are still open.
    • The governance offer line describes current design and build work. Confirm it matches what is available now and implies no hosted or certified platform.
    • The contact panel shows Mark's portrait. Who a visitor actually speaks to first is an open decision.
    • Darryl Burn's and Wendy Wang's quotes are used verbatim from the consented set, with small versions of their consented headshots. Confirm the consent covers this placement.
    • Our thinking (insights, videos, The Signal) is left off this homepage to keep one action. Decide whether a small link belongs near the end.
    • Menu links for Governance, About and Talk to us open concept A's inner pages; concept B has no inner pages of its own.
    Open concept B

  3. Concept C: Expressive and interactive

    Brand graphics and purposeful motion can explain how governance enables action in seconds, alongside real photography.

    Homepage only. Menu links open concept A's inner pages

    Why it looks like this
    • One visual language carries the story: the left half of our symbol stands for a piece of work, and the two halves together become a frame. The hero, the governance picture and the four steps all use it, so the reader learns it once.
    • Governance is explained by a switch the reader controls. Without clear boundaries the work is scattered, some people hold back and leaders see little. With them the work lines up inside the frame, each line starts with a person and ends at a decision, and leaders see all of it.
    • Motion is short and plays once. The hero settles in under two seconds and can be skipped or replayed. The governance picture changes once when it comes on screen. Nothing loops, and reduced motion or no JavaScript shows a calm finished state.
    • Real photographs sit beside the graphics near the top: the team at the table in the hero, Caleb and Mark at a screen beside what changes, and the partners further down.
    • Colour stays restrained: navy and white carry the page, yellow marks only the boundaries and the one closing panel, so the main action, Talk to us, stands out.
    Gaps and draft claims (15)
    • All copy is draft from the shared deck, plus interaction labels and captions written by the agent (src/data/concepts/c-copy.ts). None is approved.
    • The governance picture and the four step picture are illustrations of a concept, not data. Both are labelled on the page. The leader view counts (a few items against all of them) are illustrative only.
    • Placeholder: client example. Needs a real engagement with an approved public description.
    • Belinda Woolrych: the bio is a draft from her LinkedIn profile and is labelled on the page for her review, including whether former employers should be named. Her photo consent and crop are not confirmed.
    • Belinda's colour portrait is shown in black and white and cropped to her face by CSS, to match the other three headshots. That treatment is a proposal for her and Caleb to decide.
    • Photo consent for public use is not confirmed for anyone shown: Mark, John, Caleb, Belinda and Eva Trebilco, who appears in the hero photo but is not on the team list.
    • Team bios carry claims that need a currency check before public use: Mark's NZX listing and 25 years, John's 20 years and board roles.
    • The hero photo caption says "The GenerationAI team at work". Whether Eva is presented as part of the team is open.
    • The insights link is a placeholder and is labelled on the page: the insights listing is not built in this round.
    • Testimonials from Darryl Burn and Wendy Wang are consented per testimonials.ts. Their headshots are the existing files and are not resized, so they weigh more than they need to.
    • The four step definitions are agent drafts; W26 (Belinda's definitions and product mapping) is still open.
    • Governance offer wording avoids implying a hosted or certified platform. The agent supported part needs hardening before it is described in more detail.
    • Open decision: whether the yellow contact panel and the yellow frame are too much yellow. The brand rule allows yellow on navy only.
    • Open decision: the hero signature moment (the Settle field) is new to this concept and not yet reviewed against the Window opens moment adopted on 2 October.
    • Menu links for Governance, About and Talk to us open concept A's inner pages.
    Open concept C

What we are asking you

  1. Is the audience and their problem recognisable?
  2. Is the useful change, and how we help, clear?
  3. Does governance come across as enabling opportunity, not only managing risk?
  4. Are the people and the evidence credible?
  5. Is it obvious how to get in touch?
  6. What could be removed without weakening understanding?

Look at each concept on your phone as well as a computer. Send your comments with the concept letter, version and the part you mean (for example "B, v0.1, the governance section") through the website project chat. They are consolidated into one list before anything changes.