Architecture Decisions (ADRs) — Diana Website (v1)

This file records stable architectural decisions and their rationale. Items here should remain valid even as implementation details evolve.

ADR-001 — Static website as the delivery model

Status: Accepted
Context: Site is primarily informational/lead-capture, needs strong SEO, and is expected to change infrequently.
Decision: Build as a static website (pre-rendered HTML) suitable for hosting behind a Caddy reverse proxy.
Rationale:
- SEO-friendly (fully indexable content)
- Fast and reliable on mobile
- Low maintenance
Alternatives considered:
- WordPress/CMS: easier editing but higher maintenance/security surface
- SPA-only: SEO/performance risks and complexity
Consequences:
- Contact form delivery must be handled via a static-compatible approach (see ADR-002)

Status: Partially accepted (details pending)
Context: The site must collect quote request form submissions (FR-3, FR-5). The site is static, so a backend service is required.
Decision: Use an existing AWS service owned/operated by the stakeholder.
Rationale:
- Reuses existing infrastructure
- Avoids new third-party service dependencies
Remaining open items (blocking 38-lead-capture-spec.md):
- Which AWS service is used (e.g. SES, API Gateway + Lambda)?
- What is the form submission endpoint URL?
- What spam protection is in place or expected (e.g. honeypot, reCAPTCHA, AWS WAF)?
See also: OQ-3

Status: Accepted
Context: Most traffic is expected on mobile; SEO and conversion depend on usability and speed.
Decision: Adopt a mobile-first layout and performance budget mindset throughout.
Rationale:
- Improves conversion on mobile
- Supports SEO (Core Web Vitals)
Consequences:
- Images must be optimized (sized, compressed, lazy-loaded); avoid heavy JavaScript
- Ensure accessible typography and touch-friendly tap targets

Status: Accepted
Context: Individual pages per service produce better SEO but only if pages have sufficient unique content. Some services (carpentry/mounting, flooring/wood refinishing) share search intent and image assets.

Decision: Organize service pages into 9 grouped pages (down from 10+ individual items), grouped by search intent:

Page	Slug	Services grouped
Painting	`/services/painting/`	Interior & exterior painting, trim
Tile Setting	`/services/tile-setting/`	All tile types, all rooms
Drywall & Sheetrocking	`/services/drywall/`	Drywall, sheetrocking, patching
Minor Plumbing	`/services/plumbing/`	Sinks, toilets, showers
Minor Electrical	`/services/electrical/`	Lights, fans, fixtures
Carpentry & Mounting	`/services/carpentry-and-mounting/`	Carpentry, mounting, assembly
Flooring & Wood Refinishing	`/services/flooring/`	Flooring, decks, stairs, refinishing
Security & Safety Equipment	`/services/security-safety/`	Grab bars, locks, cameras
Boat Work	`/services/boat-work/`	Marine woodwork, paint, hardware

Rationale:
- Grouped pages have richer content and avoid thin-page SEO penalties
- Carpentry + Mounting share the installation/assembly search intent
- Flooring touch-ups + Wood Refinishing share the surface/finishing search intent and asset library
Consequences:
- Each grouped page must contain enough unique content to serve its target keywords
- Internal linking from the Services hub must cover all sub-topics

Status: Accepted
Context: Stakeholder decided against tracking for simplicity.
Decision: No analytics scripts, no ad pixels, no cookie consent banner in v1.
Rationale: Reduces complexity, avoids consent/privacy obligations at launch.
Consequences:
- No data-driven iteration on traffic or conversions at launch
- Adding analytics later will require revisiting privacy policy needs