Update landing page

[Meschreiber]

No description provided.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for apollo-monodocs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d529472
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/apollo-monodocs/deploys/65b2b02868ba0c00086812ce
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-712--apollo-monodocs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 58 (🔴 down 19 from production) Accessibility: 85 (no change from production) Best Practices: 92 (no change from production) SEO: 95 (🟢 up 8 from production) PWA: 50 (🟢 up 10 from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[R4ph-t]

I like how the first two tiles start with the value, and that the following ones are also reinforcing actions.

The revised right sidebar nav flow makes sense given the persona focus; it's clear who is the main target.

On the page flow in general, it feels way heavier now. It might be a design issue, not fitting with that increased number of cards. Scrolling the whole layout, it looks very dense but more importantly, nothing stands out much to me.
The client section brings a bit more variety with the full-width first card. So definitely, a design chat with Ana will be helpful if we go that route.
I've also discussed with the design agency to anticipate some of their time to craft illustrations for the cards or sections if we need them.

On the Odyssey card at the bottom, wanted to point out that the "for graphql newcomers" might be a missed opportunity to bring attention to this content. We now have a breadth of content there that is helpful at any stage. It's more the hands-on approach that makes it different from the docs. An alternative to a card for beginners would be to have one or different cards (or link) in respective sections that point to relevant tutorials/series for that persona's need. My two cents it that it feels a bit unbalanced to bring such attention to tech notes (that are not very even in quality and difficult to navigate) and hide tutorials that are definitely high-quality.

Also, I'm not sure about bringing so much attention to the principled site too; it's been a while since we have updated it. The master principles make me think more about practicing than going through a few high-level principles.
Also, if we are afraid of pushing people away from the docs towards Odyssey, why push them to a site that has little content? Might be worth considering hosting a refreshed version of this content within the docs?

[Meschreiber]

Thanks for the thoughtful review @R4ph-t !

• Re: design, totally agree that it's monotonous and could benefit from design improvements. E.g., though the client cards break the tedium, they feel a bit lightweight to me. I'll reach out to Ana once we feel good about this page content-wise, and am glad to hear we could potentially use external help for illustrations.

• Re: principledgraphql.com, this is something @shorgi and I were wondering about too—how relevant and up-to-date is it? Integrating it (and updating it in the process) into the docs could make sense. I'd love to hear Dave and @LarryUllman 's thoughts on how it could fit into the IA.

• Re: Odyssey, super good point! The "For GraphQL newcomers" doesn't do it justice...it's much more about the desired learning format rather than experience level. I can definitely work Odyssey cards to each section.

• Re: Tech notes, I do think these are worth surfacing since they bring insights from the field—by architects, for architects. The recently published revamp should help with navigability, though there's still some work to do re: style standardization.

[stellardave]

Re: principledgraphql.com, this is something @shorgi and I were wondering about too—how relevant and up-to-date is it? Integrating it (and updating it in the process) into the docs could make sense.

You want to minimize the number of places your user has to go. I don't think this content is so unique it deserves its own site. Ideally, I'd re-title this GraphQL design principles, edit for relevancy, make it as flat a hierarchy as possible, and make its official home in the About GraphQL section.

However, I wouldn't say it's so high pri you should do that migration now. I imagine it'll take some amount of lift. Easiest thing you could do right now is change the pointer in the nav to say GraphQL design principles.

In the meantime, getting one of the authors to review for accuracy is important to make sure it's worth keeping.

[R4ph-t]

It looks good to me, let's merge it!