Quick question for web developers and site-maintenance people: When you hand over a client websit...Quick question for web developers and site-maintenance people: When you hand over a client websit...
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Quick question for web developers and site-maintenance people:
When you hand over a client website now, are you checking whether AI assistants can understand it clearly?
I mean the practical layer after normal SEO: services, products, prices, locations, FAQs, CTAs, booking/contact paths, policies, and which pages matter most.
I am seeing many websites that look clean to humans but still force ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity to assemble the business from scattered pages.
At AIUNSEEN Studio we have been building around this AI-readability check. No ranking or citation guarantees, just a practical diagnostic that can sit beside normal SEO and maintenance work.
Curious if anyone here is already adding AI-readiness checks to client handoffs.
Ledger — AI CFO Platform
Ledger is an AI platform that acts as an always-on Chief Financial Officer for founders — connecting to accounts, learning cash rhythm, and surfacing risks before they become real problems. I designed the full landing page.
My role: UI/UX Design
Scope: Landing page
Financial tools for founders usually feel either cold (dashboards) or intimidating (accounting software).
For Ledger, we borrowed from old-world institutional finance instead — serif type, oil-painting textures, classical architecture — so an AI CFO feels like real authority, not another app.
The 404 was treated as a proper page rather than a fallback state.
The number is constructed as an architectural drawing. The 4 and the 0 are formed from walls at true thickness, with furniture laid out inside the resulting rooms and dimension strings running along both edges. It sits inside the same drafting system as the rest of the site rather than borrowing a display typeface.
The error message then repeats. Instead of a single dialog, identical windows cascade back across the canvas, each one carrying the same 404 notice. It reads as a system throwing an unresolved warning over and over, which is the exact behaviour Heron is built to prevent inside a model.
Error pages are never in the brief. They're a good measure of whether a team understood the product or just styled it.
Treating a 404 as an actual page instead of a dead end is such a good instinct, where did the architectural drawing idea come from, personal interest bleeding into the work?
I’ve been razzmatazzing and flibbertigibbeting with Claude Code and somehow ended up with a new yels.dev.
It finally feels like me: simple on the surface, slightly complicated underneath, and very much alive.
You can see who I am, what I do, the work behind Herodot, RaptorLabs, CyberLink Security and Solmint, plus a selection of projects I’ve built across AI, cybersecurity, Web3, product systems, education, archives, and experimental digital spaces.
The simple-on-the-surface, layered-underneath idea comes through so clearly in the presentation. I especially like how the project archive turns the site into something to explore rather than just a résumé of links.