A typical project moves through these four checkpoints. Some projects may skip or revisit a step. The audit comes first so the work starts with a clear problem and audience.
I review the website, messaging, inquiry path, and what happens after someone reaches out. The checkpoint is a plain-language summary of what appears to be working, what may be getting in the way, and what to address first.
We define the best-fit audience, the action each page should support, and the direction for the work. The checkpoint is a written direction that can be reviewed before anything is built.
Work moves in manageable stages, with a safe copy before higher-risk changes. Each stage ends at a reviewable checkpoint so feedback can shape what comes next.
After launch, care can be scoped to the site’s needs. That may include agreed updates, backups, or monitoring, with the schedule confirmed separately rather than assumed.
The working rhythm is agreed for each project. These principles describe the approach without promising a fixed meeting schedule, response time, or revision count.
You work directly with me. The scope and review points are written down before the work begins.
Updates focus on what changed, what needs review, and what comes next.
Before a higher-risk change, I create a restorable copy appropriate to that change.
Tell me what is not working and what you want the site or system to help people do. I’ll use that context to suggest a sensible first checkpoint.
