§ COLOPHON
A short note on the surface, the type, the build, and the question of AI. None of these decisions are arbitrary; if any of them age badly, this page is where I'll explain why.
§ 1.0 · PAPER
The paper changed. The cyanotype lines stayed.
A note on a reversal.
The page sits on a near-white with a very subtle cool tint,
close to #F7F8F9. It
reads as architectural drafting paper. The cool tint is
deliberate: it coordinates with the cyanotype-blue lines
that do the structural work everywhere else on the site.
Earlier drafts used FT salmon
(#FFF1E0), the bisque
stock the Financial Times has printed on since 1893. That
paper was an editorial signal, and a good one. Once the
design committed to Field Manual plus service-blueprint
vocabulary, the salmon stopped doing the work it was
hired to do. The near-white lets cyanotype lines and
typographic structure carry the identity instead.
Dark mode inverts to near-black with the same subtle cool
tint (#0E1115). The
cyanotype lines brighten to maintain legibility. The
metaphor flips the way deep-exposure cyanotype prints
do: lighter blue lines on a darker ground.
§ 2.0 · TYPE
One family, two voices. Serif for prose and headlines; mono for the system layer. The same typographic system IBM uses for its technical documentation.
DISPLAY + BODY · BOLD MONDAY / IBM · 2017
A slab-influenced serif designed for IBM's technical documentation. Carries the hero headline, every section head, project titles, and all prose. Reads as a spec document, not a marketing surface. Used here at three weights: Light (300) for display, Regular (400) for body, SemiBold (600) for structural emphasis.
SYSTEM · BOLD MONDAY / IBM · 2017
Designed alongside Plex Serif as siblings. Carries the system layer: section numbers, project metadata, dates, tags, technical annotations, anything that names structure rather than expressing voice. Used at Regular and Medium weights.
§ 3.0 · STACK
No bundler. No framework. Edit and ship.
§ 4.0 · ON USING AI
I work with Claude every day. The MCP guide on the homepage is the practical evidence of that. So is most of the instrumentation behind how I write, design, and brief clients. AI in the toolbox is not the question for me; AI in place of the work is.
Decisions on this site are mine. The accent colour and the typeface pairing and the structural choice to give every project its own layout were arguments I made to a model and kept making until they held up. The copy is mine after several passes; if a paragraph in the case studies sounds borrowed, I'd rather rewrite it than ship it.
Working with AI doesn't subtract the craft. It moves where the craft sits. The craft is now in noticing what doesn't work, naming why, and rewriting until it does. The same loop I ran in classrooms for eight years.