Poll: How do you create the website for your startup or side project? | Hacker News Reader

Poll: How do you create the website for your startup or side project?

156 pointsanujkk106 comments

Many of us here create various kind of products as side projects - web app, mobile app, e-books etc. Some of us launch startups. Most of these need a marketing/front-end website.

What you do to create that website?

View on HN

I've bounced around a bit.

Way back in the day, I had no budget, so I used OSS web themes with very light customization. Then when I actually started selling appreciable amounts of software, I had that website redone by freelancers (twice). It has not been my experience that cutting-edge web design has made huge differences to sales in the sort of markets I tend to operate in, though, so these days I mostly just get a themeforest/etc theme, have designers add in decent graphics (if required), and then do a bit of munging by myself.

Designers, cover your ears for a moment: There are many businesses which have sold many millions of dollars of product, including in our industry, with web design which is less impressive than things you can get on Themeforest/WooThemes/etc for whole tens of dollars. (This is not just applicable to marketing sites, by the way. There are plenty of applications which end up looking like they were designed by a software engineer which, for $15, could have had that same engineer just extract a Rails template from a Themeforest project and end up looking 100x better. Search for [admin] on Themeforest and feast your eyes.)

Or, for that matter, google.com, which launched a $340B business on a website that could've been made by a 12-year-old.

Ironically, Google actually has some really talented designers now, but the minimalist look has become part of the Google brand, and so all the designers now are constrained by user expectations of what Google should look like.

Funny, that doesn't match my, or, (apparently) many other HN user's experiences as we've watched Google's design march from "highly usable" to "the kind of thing Microsoft does"

I think that what you're seeing is the effect of design coherency on a product. You are generally far better off having one barely-trained designer put together a product than a dozen best-of-class designers. Why? Because a product designed by one inexperienced person will at least be consistent. They have their overall vision of what they want to achieve, and they can make trade-offs appropriately.

When you have dozens of designers that all want to leave their mark on the product, you end up with...dozens of features, none of which fit together quite right. Google is in that state right now. Microsoft is in a far worse state, where you have hundreds of PMs that each want to display their button as prominently as possible. This is what people make fun of as "design by committee".

Until 2010, Marissa was the sole gatekeeper of what could go onto the search results page. The result was that it was at least consistent, if minimalist and relatively unchanging. The other result was that she pissed off a whole bunch of other people by saying "no", brought Search to a virtual logjam, and made numerous talented people quit. That's the price of design consistency and a highly usable product for users; everyone who's not calling the shots ends up pretty disenchanted, and usually finds greener pastures. Steve Jobs played an analogous role at Apple Computer - it worked great while he was alive, but now there is a design vacuum that you're starting to see in their later products.

BTW, if you want to see what some of Google's design talent can do when freed from committees, check out the Doodles. In general there is just one artist responsible for each individual doodle, and it shows. (Some of the interactive ones have multiple people involved, but even then it's a small team with a single creative lead.) And the doodles generally have a reputation as being one of the most delightful parts of the site.

>>> When you have dozens of designers that all want to leave their mark on the product, you end up with...dozens of features, none of which fit together quite right. Google is in that state right now.

I think it is quite the opposite now. Google designers are TOLD to uphold similar design pattern on all Google products, which have the same features across all of them.

Seriously, why does gmail, google+, and google search should have a similar look? It just breaks some functionalities. These products are different and should not look alike. Pushing same patterns into users mouths, when it hinders the experience is an overkill.

Once I heard Marissa Mayer recount that she asked Sergey Brin where he got the idea of doing such a minimalist design for Google. Sergey's answer was: I don't do HTML.

There's similar quotes in an interview with Larry and Sergey in "Designing Interactions" by Bill Moggridge. Sergey explains (in a lot more detail than I do here) that they kept the front page simple because they didn't want to spend too much time on the front page. Only afterwards did they realise how powerful that was, and they decided to keep things off there as much as possible.

>Or, for that matter, google.com, which launched a $340B business on a website that could've been made by a 12-year-old.

... with an advanced understanding of graph theory, a research paper outlining a novel searching and ranking algorithm, a distributed cluster of servers crawling and indexing tens of millions of sites, and an inverted database of every keyword that appears on all of them. But yeah.

Pretty sure they just meant the web design. Not the application.

  > It has not been my experience that cutting-edge web design 
  > has made huge differences to sales in the sort of markets
  > I tend to operate in

With all due respect, but BCC never had "cutting-edge" web design, it was always (at least in the incarnations I saw) barely adequate design-wise. http://panic.com or http://tapbots.com or http://www.kaleidoscopeapp.com is what I'd call well designed. What's interesting they all also look like template design, but they have the polished look BSS is lacking.

Of course, maybe you have something other than BCC in mind, or you did try the design on par with the examples above and it did not convert well, then disregard this comment.

Exactly right, but also exactly wrong. patio11 made an understatement to get his point across - that design doesn't matter as much as people think. That you, respectfully, call Bingo Card Creator not even close to cutting edge just makes his argument stronger.

  > patio11 made an understatement to get his point across -
  > that design doesn't matter as much as people think

That may very well be true (and I think it is true in a sense). But I can also argue that without testing with truly polished design you only know that one "not-quite-there-yet" design has no advantage over other of the same kind.

Sorry, but the three designs you posted may have been well designed 10 years ago but now they just look old.

Then do you have counterexamples for sites you would say have a modern look?

Warning: Incoming flat design.

I personally think they look like trendy hipster design. Not much text explaining anything, just a load of icons I am supposed to understand without any context.

Seems to appeal to the iPhone generation.

I was thinking less BCC and more the consulting career when I thought that. Not going to point fingers, obviously, but you'd be surprised how little a $X0,000 redesign (from meh to almost-wow) did relative to e.g. changing the H1 on the front page.

As an opposing datapoint, I actually had an unexpected A/B result when testing the recent S3stat redesign. Trial signups for the new version were better, but only by a percent or two. Not really enough to bother switching.

But I also tracked all the way through to purchases (which typically happen after 30 days of use), and I'm glad I did. After two months, the people seeing the new version were converting twice as well as the ones seeing the old version. As in, double the sales. As in, wow.

So I guess it's entirely possible that users do in fact respond to pretty design. The only thing one can do is test and see.

Having a "plain" website can be an advantage depending on your audience. I can say I trust places such as http://prgmr.com/ and http://tarsnap.com/ more than I would trust some "Delightful Xen Servers" or "Delicious Backups" startup-site.

prgmr.com is an excellently designed website. It is also a plain website. patio11 is talking about sites that are designed poorly, not plainly.

I write open source libraries primarily. A nicely formatted readme on github tends to be best, since most people will be there anyway. Fancy websites tend to drive me crazy for code libraries, since they tend to distract people from the thing they are really looking for; a simple pitch and documentation.

That being said... I have been working on a javascript geoprocessing library lately and am considering a full blown interactive website. The reason being that many of the features are difficult for people to understand without being visualized. I still want to keep it fairly simple though.

The idea would basically be to have a page for each operation with 2 maps and a description of the algorithm. The first map would show the example input and the second map would show the output. I think this would allow developers who may not be familiar with more advanced geo statistical methodologies to be able to see what is possible with their data and spark some creativity. The existing readme tries its best to get the ideas across, but I doubt it would be that effective in its current form for someone who is not very familiar with traditional gis analysis already. https://github.com/morganherlocker/geo.js

I think the consensus here is that I know absolutely nothing about web design; but I do it myself anyway.

There's also a gap I'm (and I'm sure most designers, unless they do everything by hand) sitting in, which is I know enough about web design to leverage UI frameworks like Bootstrap/Foundation to make nice designs. I think people forget that bootstrap and zurb are easily customizable.

It starts as a prototype in vanilla zurb (usually), then gets themed into something pretty.

I think we all know something about web design.

We can all point out bad or horrible web design, at a minimum. We can also point out individual elements that make horrible web design horrible. Nobody here is going to recreate a GeoCities page by accident.

We can also point to good web design, though the particulars of why the design is good might escape us.

A good compromise is to use established patterns (like Bootstrap) which we know to be acceptable, if not stellar. And then to add small custom details as needed to our site designs.

I'm accomplished enough at CSS that I can make tweaks to an existing website. I'm not good at creating an overarching CSS template/framework from scratch, so I don't try to do that.

> I think we all know something about web design.

And if you don't, please take a few minutes of your time and watch this[0] to bootstrap yourself into getting the why.

[0]: http://www.slideshare.net/Wolfr/design-for-developersonlinev...

> but I do it myself anyway

Why? Assuming time/money is not an issue, it seems you could at least A/B test a professionally designed website to see if it converts better.

When is time/money ever not an issue?

Not sure what you mean. It's another way to say "if you have the time/money".

You asked him why he does it himself. He responded by saying that time and money are the issue.

This is why minimalism became so popular as a design solution.

Or to put it another way, CSS makes me scratch my head sometimes.

How that logo contest going, by the way? It seems to be based on the same principle, hence the question.

I've got lots of submissions, widely varying in quality. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with something I like.

Definitely this. I might browse around and get inspiration by some websites I like but I build everything my own.

End up wasting hours and hours choosing the right colour scheme for the website... in the end the side project ends up getting put on hold while I work out the best framework to use for the website.

edit: wait until I have to choose the 'right' font...

This is so true!

Lol. So true. I spent maybe 40 hours making a website that has a grey theme and only 5 static HTML pages: https://machinepublishers.com

I also ditched the whole idea of a front-end framework. If I need a backend I'll just generate the HTML manually server-side.

Do designers get faster at this I guess?

I am primarily a python hacker and not a professional designer but to answer your question, I made http://getquicksite.com in 14 hours this weekend. Of course, having a framework like Bootstrap to start with helps.

white and red on orange? I hate to be critical, but these really do need a designer, or someone with more of an eye for color and fonts. The header is large yet the font is small, the colors either clash or are hard to read.

Agreed. Thanks for the input. How about the other two color schemes(You can check them in demo)? I will make the required changes to improve the design.

Its not that bad.

14 hours... That's nice, how did you do that so fast?

This is great and deserves it's own post. I bought modulz for $70 before realizing that it wasn't made with bootstrap. Thank you for making this great starting package! I've bought it.

For color schemes: check out http://colorschemedesigner.com/ I can get a "presentable" color scheme in about 5 minutes, and it will probably look better than if I played with the colors individually for a week.

For fonts - just use something simple & sans-serif like Verdana/Arial/Helvetica, or Roboto on Android. I've seen very few sites pull off non-standard fonts and have it look good.

thanks for the tips!

my post was tongue in cheek, I know in my mind that the best course of action is to just stick with default and get the site up...

however I can't help but tweak, and play, and move divs around so that the website on my screen looks just like the one I am imagining in my mind. It is almost always spot on, but never quite right...

In the past, I always wanted to build everything on my own, I thought that only then it will be "good enough". Now, I'm quite the opposite - I value time. Every task is just one of many and it's more important to finish them all, than to be stuck with one trying to make it "perfect". Sure, quality is important, but from my experience the real question is when something is "good enough", i.e it meets given criteria and spending more time would give little to no value. Spending countless hours on a website polishing every little detail is just a waste of time, so I choose to either outsource it or use a ready hosted service, even though I worked as a web developer for several years.

As far as mechanics go, I've found a great compromise between the power and convenience of a CMS and the simplicity of a static page: using a static site generator. I personally prefer Hakyll[1], as you might have guessed :P.

This makes managing a structured site easy without having to configure a complicated server. Of course, it also means you can't have much dynamic content. For something simple--say comments--you could use an external service like Disqus, but you won't be able to do much beyond that without running your own server.

[1]: http://jaspervdj.be/hakyll/

I just launched Rate My App[0] yesterday evening on Hacker News, so this is great timing. :)

In the four days between idea and launch, how much time did I spend on the landing page, and would I do it again?

As an experienced engineer, I realized the first thing I had to worry about was the marketing content, so I spent the first day configuring my social accounts and creating and uploading a video.

Short version:

Yesterday, I implemented my own design because I wanted a simple site that had exactly the code I needed. I would do it again, especially since the next time I can re-use the build process I created.

Longer version:

Assuming you're familiar with CSS and HTML, you're better off finding a decent template or web site and re-creating the few parts about it you like yourself. Using a fancy template will be a time sink, both in understanding all the complicated things the author threw in, but also focusing your time on making your site perfect (since you just paid for it) rather than focusing on launching.

And in the two days in-between, I figured out the value I could bring to customers. I also spent a lot of time configuring payments, emails, form submissions, etc.

Establishing some process to collect feedback and getting your name and purpose out there is the main point of launching, so worry about that more than the landing page.

TL;DR: as far as systems, you're better off establishing some kind of a process (hopefully an off-the-shelf system that can function independent of your concerns) that allows you to iterate on your actual product quickly. As far as visuals, though, spending lots of time on making this tiny part of your product perfectly integrated with a particular template can make it emotionally difficult or time-consuming for you to replace or modify as necessary later on.

I'm writing a series of blog posts (@vla on twitter) about this, by the way.

[0] the app: www.ratemyapp.com

This is exactly what Drywall was designed for. It's a website and user system for Node.js

Feedback is welcomed.

http://jedireza.github.io/drywall/

Edit: more so for a functional side project, not a static website.

Looks good. Thanks.

I am a dev with C background and zero experience in nodejs. I have been using Drywall to get a Web GUI frontend for a CLI tool. Progress are slow on my side, yet it was very helpful to get me started.

I've tried a few.

The problem with Themeforest is how muddled and complicated the HTML DOM in themes usually are - and even if the design is intuitive, it's not yours, so it's rather difficult to own completely. With that said, I've used it for some excellent WordPress projects before, and if you are willing to pay there is quality work there.

I prefer using a bootstrap framework to get stuff out there. Depending on the project, I'll spend some time customizing the defaults, adding plugins, etc. If the project is small enough, I won't even bother with that. Bringing in a design agency is only useful is you have VC cash to burn. It's usually far cheaper/effective to find a design freelancer to partner with. A decent designer can help you create a logo as well, which is an essential step, and something that's difficult for laymen to pull off well.

Remember the enemy of progress is the perfect. A side project/startup needs to iterate as fast as possible, so it's far better to throw something out there than to languish in design mode for months before giving up on your cool idea.

For my side projects, my rule of thumb is: a) the site isn't embarrassingly bad, and could be publicly associated with me. b) site design took less than 20% of my overall effort on the project.

I've used them all but settled on Themeforest. Yes you can make your own, but why would you when you can choose something that's already well designed for a couple of dollars. Save the design practice for the app itself.

I've been thinking about making the code I wrapped around gae-boilerplate on http://stackgeek.com and http://tinyprobe.com a bit more modular to make it easy to get something running quick. The code comes with Oauth logins, blogging with Gists, and Bootstrap templates. If anyone's interested in the code, it's on Github: https://github.com/StackGeek/stackgeek-gaeb.

Bootstrap/Foundation, strip out what I don't need (read: delete some of the LESS imports) and customise it. Both frameworks are actually fairly easy to customise these days, and it doesn't take a significant amount of effort to end up with a Bootstrap site that doesn't "look like a Bootstrap site". I'm nowhere near skilled enough (nor do I have the time) to write my own grid system, panels, basic buttons, etc.

The blog attached to my side-project will use the same CSS and just leverage jekyll/GitHub Pages/prose.io to keep things simple.

For something that actually matters to me, I'll work with a designer on the core visual concept, meaning usually the logo, color palette, and overall feel. Once I have that, I feel competent staying within the given parameters to put together a pretty solid design.

It really helps to spend some effort learning the basic rules of typography and visual design. It won't make you a great designer, but it will make you a much smarter customer of designers, and make you able to execute someone else's design concepts gracefully.

Being an old trombone myself, I find the learning curve to get proficient in any recent UI framework isn't worth my time.

I use an old school text editor to write html/js manually, and then maybe I play a bit with photoshop. Results are not jaw-dropping but not too shabby either, and I can put together a landing page in a couple of hours. ( eg. http://newspo.st )

So yes, I'm here just to brag about it. I'm a terrible person. :)

It looks nice.

I have couple of websites. The first one[0] is done with basic Bootstrap. Second[1], I bought BootStrap theme from WrapBootStrap and reducing it to my needs.

Apart from this, the main issue is designing logos and graphics. Eventhough it takes time, I somehow do it myself(with GIMP) and enjoy it as well :)

[0] http://www.computeloops.com [1] http://www.remotewaker.com

Unless you really know who you're selling to, putting a lot of effort into a site design is probably a premature optimization. Just grab a reasonable free template or learn enough design [1] to do it yourself.

[1] I like the Non-Designer's Design Book by Robin Williams: http://www.peachpit.com/store/non-designers-design-book-9780...

Agreed. It's seductive though; 'designing' the marketing site also involves imagining all those users that are going to visit the site and know instantly that it solves their problem. Marcelo Calbucci provides a good checklist of reasons your Startup will or won't fail http://blog.calbucci.com/2013/09/10-reasons-your-startup-wil.... You're unlikely to fail if the "logo was ugly, or the name of the company was bad"

Although i can build a site on my own from scratch. I am not a designer so it takes a lot of time to come up with something which i am satisfied with. So this is what i do to produce decent looking ones in short span of time.

I normally bookmark sites/admin which are impressive under different categories. I do lot of scouting in builtwithbootstrap.com and builtwithbootstrap.com. This helps me to arrive at a layout idea and color scheme to make the website look professional. I steal small css snippets from many different places(not all from one place) i have scouted and put them all together. After the layout is done - i do the customization to all the snippets till i feel it has a look of it's own. Then it's usually bit of jquery, follow little seo recommendation and google analytics. Newsletter/contact form is normally done with a bit of php. This process helps me to come with something decent in very little time. Once uploaded and if the product/project gains traction - will immediately outsource the website development.

I checked three, because I do those three every time!

Note: I tend to build political blogs or tiny campaign websites, not actual apps.

1) download wordpress.

2) pick a theme to start hacking on, either one of the defaults, or a "write me some CSS" plain theme.

3) hack around in CSS and the PHP to get the exact layout and spacing I want. I did make several projects that used custom web fonts, custom javascript, etc.

Note: my latest blog is just a very basic customisation of Octopress. I really liked the HTML5 theme that scales down onto my phone perfectly, and being able to write in Markdown.

EDIT: Oh, people are worried about doing their own design?! I was entirely happy with doing my own web design, and have made maybe 10 wordpress themes, including some as a freelance designer for others (by accident). I only charge a tiny amount for my work, because I do it for charities and political activist friends, neither of whom have any money!

Er.. I've tried most of them :)

For the latest one I bought a template from ThemeForest. (so I voted that)

The one before that was a Bootstrap (the framework) effort, which ended up not very nice.

Before that, I tried Joomla.

And before that, I had a very basic HTML page :)

I've realized I'm really bad at the "design" part, I'm better off doing the backend stuff.

Since I don't know how to design I used to hire a designer until Twitter Bootstrap came in. Now I am hiring the same designer but for modifying the twitter bootstrap css.

At the end I am using Mezzanine as the Django CMS that includes bootstrap. The result can be seen at http://www.nektra.com

The customized parts are:

- CSS

- Mezzanine/Django templates

- Added my own page class. When the visitors displays a product it shows the related services/solutions and when the visitor displays a service/solution it shows the related products.

One more thing: in the near future I will try to add more functionality adding services via Javascript widgets like mailchimp instead of modifying the backend as much as possible.

I know absolutely nothing about design. I use bootstrap and more or less copy pre-existing designs that have the desired aesthetic.

Problem is that I can tell when a UI is terrible, but coming up with the right one is not as simple as the inverse of terrible :(

Amber frontend, Pharo backend. Persistence on MongoDB and scalable observation/reaction on Redis.

But for me these days the prototype or beta is way less important than offline validation. The MVP is more a vehicle to engage people than anything else.

Do you have documentation for this somewhere? Been meaning to look at Amber sometime now. Are you using Voyage for Mongo? FFI for Redis?

I know UI Design and a just a little bit of backend. My sideprojects are always more about design and less about technical part, however whatever little technical part it requires, it gives me enough to learn something new.

For http://typezebra.com/ I learnt a bit of Javascript while for https://bootmystrap.com/ I learnt to design websites properly using LESS CSS.

The way I keep myself motivated to finish sideprojects is that most of the part is right up my alley, design which gives me confidence I can finish it.

I have a side project that I fiddle with in my spare time. Reading about something unrelated, I stumbled across a site with a really nice layout/presentation.

I'll be honest: My side project is a straight-up rip off of that other site's layout. I did all my own assets in photoshop but the actual design is theirs. I don't feel bad, either. I reverse-engineered their design into piecrust and just rolled with it.

Made me feel like I was 13 years old again, viewing the source for someone's Geocities page so I could figure out how they wrote their javascript to move things around sinusoidally.

Good ol Twitter Bootstrap, Jekyll, and S3. Even an incompetent like me can put up website:

http://www.smalldatajournalism.com/

I don't get why people don't always start from a bootstrap theme. It's 10$. 10$! Even if you hire a designer or an agency, tell them to start with a bootstrap theme!

I bought a template from themeforest, and then customize it with a text editor and Firebug, but then I tired of that, after tweaking css with Firebug, I had to manually copy back the changes to the text editor; moreover, I wanted to see result in real-time after I edited the html, so I decided to develop my own live editor to do the task: http://liveditor.com

For my recently-launched consulting site (http://www.acceliva.com), I used a static site generator with a custom bootstrap-based design. I started off with a Node.js stack (Wintersmith + Jade + Stylus) but eventually switched to a Ruby stack (Middleman + HAML + SASS) because Middleman came with better plugins for S3 Sync, Cloudfront invalidation, and asset hashing.

We don't have a service component (yet) and a designer did the logo/app design so the icon/screenshots of the app was the most important to showcase.

We used CloudFormation to build a Wordpress server on EC2. Then I used Apptamin's free app launch theme (based on Thematic).

It was pretty easy, but it could probably be more customized longer term...

Check it out here: http://whizzlearning.com.

I voted for both themeforest template and bootstrap as the static 'sales' site for BugMuncher is a slightly customised themeforest template, but the control panel is all customised bootstrap.

I did initially use a paid theme for the admin area, but bootstrap allowed me to build something that worked much better for BugMuncher, instead of trying to shoehorn in a one-size-fits-all admin template.

I think most of us don't have budgets for hiring designers for side projects, because they are just side projects which may not merit spending more money on design, as a lot of hackers do know the very basics of design. If it does grow out of the side project phase and is actually showing potential to generate some serious cash flow, then more money is spent on proper design.

I love Weebly for quick and dirty sites that I can hand off to a non-techie to fill in the content.

For example: http://mhsp75th.weebly.com

It's very fast to get something decent looking that has forms (and easy access to the data) and payments and layouts for desktop and mobile.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Middleman. It's a static page generator used by several big players (it claims MailChimp and Mandrill here [1]).

Or Jekyll for that matter.

[1] http://middlemanapp.com/community/built-using-middleman/

We at http://codedose.com favor Bootstrap for business/CRUD-like applications as it's super easy to build a sound design with it and prefer to create a dedicated design for consumer web apps, like stock market analytics app we are working on now.

I like to connect developing design myself and using bootstrap. First to give unique touch to a website, second to speed things up since I have already written my part of floats for webdesign industry and will be fine with just adding proper classes now. That's why it's there after all, to use it. :)

I used to obsess over style and color and fonts and stuff. Now i'm likely to just to Slim/Laravel + Twig + Bootstrap and try to move on with my life.

Which is weird... I was the "art kid" for most of my life but I realized that when it comes to this I like the code a lot more than the design.

We've just launched a startup that helps with design feedback (free while in beta) - if any of you is interested in checking it out http://www.viewflux.com We've used it internally for another project and it worked great.

I use a combination of framework and build it myself. It really depends on the aim of the site. Frameworks are nice for larger sites but if it's just something small, with a limited feature set, knocking up my own css and minimising the size of the assets is a good thing in my opinion.

I use bootstrap and either customize the css, or use something from bootswatch.com

When you guys use ThemeForest themes for a Saas app, do you get the extended license?

The license details are a little murky, so I'm not sure, but leaning towards it being the extended license that's needed.

Hey Guys is this the write Place to ask this question? I mean I think we are all some kind of tech geeks, I assume and most of will design a web site ourself isn't it? I don't know this is My humble opinion.

I've done the last couple on "Middleman, SASS, Coffeescript, Bootstrap". This stack coupled with github for deploy/updates is the quickest to develop on for me. Good stuff there.

Web design and web development are two very different things that overlap heavily. Judging from the options you have provided I suggest you pay someone to do it and focus on what you do well.

we're developing a website for non-designers who have built or maintain websites

the basic idea is to get a quick review of your website from an expert designer. They'll give you tips on what they would fix if it was their website.

if anyone has a website they'd like an expert designer to take a quick-ish look at and give you feedback please see my thread here (note: its FREE whilst we get it going):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6621909

For side project I use my own web-side make program. Really fast. You can download this at:

http://download.jdlab.org/

I hope this can help you.

Drupal + Bootstrap + a bit of custom css/html

https://www.rubyonrailstutor.com build something real.

I've been using 99designs.com for landing page design and further used bootstrap and css to make it run. :)

Use Strikingly of course. No brainer.

Strikingly looks very cool. But don't forget your disclaimer.

Use Bootstrap. If you're scared of using that, use Jetstrap to get a premade Bootstrap template.

neocities if it's small enough, tornado for internal demos of ideas. As a person whp develops deep learning back end stuff I often find that a decent UI to show case an idea is far more successful than circulating a paper (and I despise PPT)

use a WP theme from themeforest. Use mailchimp to capture emails. Grab a twitter handle use a mobile first design. get hosting and make sure they have 1 click install of WP. Buy a twitter handle Find hosting in USA Launch

You know web designing & develop it yourself.

So that if there are any trouble, you can fix it.

Pharo Seaside, jQuery, Bootstrap or PureCSS, postgreSQL

Glad to hear about that here :D

I'd use a slightly different stack these days, I'll post an answer..

Html Css from scratch baby. j/k themes

No CMS option?

added

Few years back i did some wordpress it worked joust fine so i stick with it. Lots of good plugins as well as great looking themes, setting it up can be done pretty quickly. However creating site from scratch is admirable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com