- Home
- How this build works
Reference build
Same content. Higher bar.
This is an Evercomm-built reference version of the new corporate site. It carries the same content as the current draft, reorganised and rebuilt so the standard we are aiming for is something you can click rather than something you have to imagine.
- No page builder
- No framework
- Five editions
- No tracking
- Static HTML
What this is
A working reference, not a review and not a replacement.
Everything here starts from content that already exists: the draft site, Evercomm's copy direction, and the published material on evercomm.io. The great majority of the draft's sentences survive here unchanged.
Two kinds of writing were added on top, and both are marked rather than blended in. Replacement copy was written where the draft carried placeholder text, a duplicated block or a corrupted section. Illustrative figures were drawn to show what a product does, and they say on the figure that they are illustrative: no record identifier, factor or tonnage anywhere on this site belongs to a real client.
A number of the draft's claims are also stated differently here, because they carry a figure or a superlative with nothing on file behind them. Those changes are listed under Choices below rather than made quietly. The point is not that this build is finished. It is that a reader can see, in one place, what the content looks like when the structure carries it.
Take anything from it. The markup is plain HTML, shared by all five editions, and the styling is one stylesheet per edition.
Five editions
The same 21 pages, designed five ways.
Every word is identical across the five. Only the design language changes, which is the only honest way to judge what a design decision is actually doing.
Edition 01
Console
A modern product site run at high density: teal on deep navy, a strict grid, dark bands carrying the data. Conventional on purpose. It is what a large enterprise buyer expects to see, and it is the version that is easiest for a vendor team to pick up.
Edition 02
Logbook
Warm log stock, deep ink, and signal colour used only where something carries a status. An editorial serif for the argument and an instrument monospace for every figure. It reads as the company's own record rather than as its marketing, which suits a business that sells verifiable facts.
Edition 03
Datum
The site drawn as an engineering sheet: drafting ink on vellum, a working grid, dimension rules against the numbers that matter, and one blueprint band per page. A datum is the reference surface every measurement is taken from, which is close enough to the business to be worth trying.
Edition 04
Aurora
The site read the way an AI software company would ship it: navigation floats as a glass capsule over a night hero, then the page opens into a daylight field of rounded cards, with dark sections inset as spotlit panels rather than bands. The glow is the brand's light side, given a name.
Edition 05
Flux
The site as a signal environment. A three.js point terrain runs behind every page, driven by time, scroll and pointer, and the usual furniture is gone: no menu bar, no bands, corners and edges carrying the instruments instead. Grids are seamed circuit boards, step counts are ghost numerals, and every readout is set in monospace. The content is untouched; everything around it is unrecognisable.
Why five The interesting question is not which one is prettiest. It is which one makes a regulator, a bank's risk team and an operations engineer trust the page. Judged against that, a conventional look is a legitimate answer, and so is refusing one. Reviewing all five with the words held still is the cheapest way to have that argument properly.
Principles
Eight rules the whole build follows.
None of these are exotic. They are the things that are hard to retrofit and cheap to do from the start.
One h1 per page
Every page has exactly one h1 that states what the page is about, and a heading order that descends without skipping. Headings are used for headings, not for body copy or for numbers.
Every link resolves
There is no href="#" anywhere. The build fails if an internal link points at a page that does not exist, and external links open in a new tab with that stated for screen readers.
Nothing hidden by animation
Content is visible on first paint. Nothing depends on scrolling to become readable, so what a visitor sees does not depend on how fast they scroll or whether motion is reduced.
Tables for tabular content
Comparisons, phases and deliverables are real tables with header cells and captions. They scroll horizontally on a phone instead of collapsing into unreadable columns.
Claims carry their evidence
Superlatives are replaced with what can be evidenced: validated by international certification bodies for ISO 14064-1, ISO 14064-2 and the GHG Protocol. Where something is illustrative, it says so on the figure.
The form is honest
The enquiry form validates, then tells you plainly that nothing was sent. A form that silently discards an enquiry is worse than no form.
Written once, used everywhere
Navigation, header and footer come from one source, so a label cannot say Finance in one place and something else in another. Product names have one spelling each.
Readable by default
Body text at a comfortable size, line lengths held near 70 characters, visible focus rings, contrast that passes AA, and colour that holds up in every edition.
Choices
Five decisions worth arguing about.
These are judgement calls rather than corrections. They are listed so they can be discussed rather than absorbed silently.
Sectors are in the main navigation
The copy direction is to keep a simple top navigation with sectors reached only from homepage cards and the footer. This build adds a Sectors menu instead. The homepage names financial institutions, industry and the public sector as the three target markets in the first screen, and pages exist for all three, so requiring a visitor to scroll to find them costs more than the extra menu item saves. If the simple navigation wins, the sector cards and footer links must at minimum all work.
Products are presented as four layers of one platform
The product lineup is being consolidated, and restructuring is held for a later phase. This build keeps all five product pages and their content intact, but frames them on a products overview page as layers of one infrastructure rather than as five separate tools. It is a presentation change, not a restructuring: no page was merged, and the product copy is carried across in full apart from the claim changes listed below.
Case studies and articles are indexed separately
Six real case studies exist and are published. Presenting recent blog posts under a Case Studies heading spends the credibility of the real ones. This build gives each its own index, labels every item with what it is, and links out to the published article rather than duplicating it.
Figures are drawn, not photographed
Diagrams and charts are inline vector graphics with titles and descriptions, so they scale, adapt to the surrounding theme, weigh almost nothing and are readable by a screen reader. Stock photography is not used as a substitute for a product screen. Where imagery is genuinely needed and not yet available, the space is left out rather than filled.
Some of the draft's claims are worded differently here
This is the change most worth checking, because each item is reversible the moment substantiation appears. Five kinds of change were made:
- Superlatives replaced with what can be evidenced. Award-winning, unparalleled granularity and proven accuracy are stated plainly instead.
- Quantified benefits removed where no source could be found for the number. A 14-day reporting window, asset lifetime costs down by up to 25 percent, design timelines down by up to 70 percent, and 80 percent of enterprise AI pilots. Every one of these is more persuasive than the hedge that replaced it, so if the working is on file they should go straight back in.
- Exclusivity claims removed. Southeast Asia's only platform, and flawless calculation.
- Named third parties held back pending clearance. This removes per-client project claims, and it also removed the named competitor firms from the Aligned Capital comparison, which now compares categories rather than companies.
- Defects in the draft repaired in place. A phase table with two columns swapped, three duplicated blocks, a garbled product subheading, and placeholder text in two implementation sections.
A written page-by-page comparison against the draft exists on the Evercomm side and can be shared on request.
Pending
What this build deliberately does not have.
These are open items on the Evercomm side, not omissions. They are listed here so nobody has to guess whether they were forgotten.
| Item | Status | Handled here by |
|---|---|---|
| Partner and client logo files | Print-quality files and usage clearance pending | Named wordmarks set as text |
| Capital programme name | Aligned Capital or One Finance, not yet settled | Aligned Capital used throughout, with the open decision stated on the page |
| Per-client project names | Client clearance required before public use | General wording only, no per-client project claims |
| Photography | To be supplied by Evercomm | Space left out rather than filled with stock |
| Product screenshots | Not supplied | Drawn figures and described dashboards |
| Regional postal detail | To be confirmed against office records | Omitted rather than published unverified |
| Privacy notice | Published policy is dated April 2024 | Summarised, with the live policy linked |
| Article archive | Lives in the content management system | Selected index, linking to the published articles |