Draft

Website case study

Antisocial Norm

The design and build of this paper-world publishing space - playful in form, serious about reading, access and evidence.

Purpose

What it is for

Create a personal publishing space for essays, practical guides and projects without reproducing conventional personal-brand aesthetics.

Problem

What needs attention

A tactile visual identity can become decoration, chaos or nostalgia. The site needed to feel physically made while keeping serious writing calm, legible and easy to navigate.

Principles

  • Paper is the material, not an overlay
  • Playful form does not weaken serious thought
  • Irregularity belongs inside a disciplined system
  • Access requirements shape the aesthetic rather than being added later

Key decisions

  • Use the formal brand kit as the source of truth
  • Build with static HTML, central CSS tokens and minimal TypeScript
  • Use transparent source-led character assets
  • Stop autonomous motion on long-form pages and under reduced-motion preferences

Current state

Local website build with draft editorial content and complete core routes.

Safety information

The publishing system keeps draft status and unresolved evidence visible. Sensitive personal or casework material is deliberately outside this repository.

Support

The accessibility page explains the implemented behaviour and provides a route for reporting a barrier when a contact method is later confirmed.

Privacy

The static site uses no analytics, advertising, accounts, cookies or remote runtime services. Search runs in the browser against a local index.

Project notes

The physical motion system uses small lifts, hinge-like rotation and directional shadows. Torn edges mark major transitions rather than every component.

Next questions

What still needs an answer

  1. Which draft essays should be developed for publication first?
  2. What production domain should replace the configurable example URL?
  3. Which contact route can be published safely?
  4. How should future artwork be reviewed against the source photographs?