Building this site

Existing material first

This first version began with a written brief, a source manifest and a recorded LinkedIn profile supplement. The brief set the scope and the privacy boundaries. Teaching materials and subject-specific AI guidance were checked through read-only access, alongside two dated emails confirming implementation status and professional development.

The LinkedIn supplement added detail about Japanese studies, research and earlier media work. It also exposed inconsistencies in dates and titles. The draft biography therefore uses a selective narrative, with unresolved points kept in a separate private review record. Recommendations have not been placed on the site.

What AI did

An AI coding agent drafted the website copy from that material, created the layouts and styling, and implemented the static site. This was not an independently authored set of older articles transferred to a new platform. The writing dates record the creation of these drafts; the dates of the underlying professional work are shown separately.

The implementation uses Astro, TypeScript and local Markdown files. Pages can render without a connection to school accounts or an AI service. There is no account-based content system, tracking or contact form. Public contact details and a CV remain pending approval.

Decisions in this version

The front page makes the current teaching role clear, while a substantial personal page makes room for movement, languages, making and games. Three detailed professional pieces were chosen over a separate page for every subject or interest. A small shared Notes collection can grow across topics.

The design uses system fonts and works without a portrait or photo gallery. Drafts are visible in this private version so that their wording can be reviewed in context. The website has not been publicly deployed.

Checks and corrections

The production build and content/type checks completed successfully. Internal links, page anchors, local assets and private-source URL patterns were checked. Browser inspection covered the page templates, all three work pieces and layouts from 320 to 1440 pixels wide, including tablet proportions and 200% text enlargement. That review led to corrections to the mobile title and to header and grid wrapping at enlarged text sizes. Keyboard checks covered the mobile menu and skip link. These checks do not amount to a complete accessibility certification.

Review still matters

The code and editorial draft are separate things to review. A functioning page does not establish that every biographical detail is correct, that an interpretation sounds like its owner or that material is approved for release. Those decisions remain with the owner. A separate handoff records technical checks and the remaining factual and publication questions.