I built my website in a week. It took 25 years of experience.

I designed and built the new gomo.digital in a week. It took 25 years of experience to be able to do that.

This was the first time I used AI as a design partner, not only for code. I want to write down how it went, what surprised me and where I had to step in, because I think it’s useful for designers who are trying to work out where AI fits in their process.

From assistant to partner

I’ve used AI almost since it appeared. In the beginning it wasn’t very good at code, and I used it anyway. As the models got better, it became part of how I build websites: TypeScript, import scripts, debugging. On recent client projects it’s a big part of why the timelines got shorter.

Design was different. I’d never really let AI into that part of the work. With this site I decided to try it with Claude, and see how far it could go.

What I decided first

Before any design, I told Claude what the site had to get right: accessibility, variety in the layouts, meta descriptions and structured data. These were rules from the first day, not things to fix at the end.

I think this matters more than any prompt. I don’t do what people call vibe coding. I know what I want, I say it clearly, and I follow every step, in design and in code. The speed comes from knowing what to ask for, and what to refuse.

Finding a direction

I asked Claude for several visual directions: something clean, something from the 80s, a few retro variations, one that looked like a magazine. They were quite different from each other.

One of them had something I wanted to explore, so we expanded it. From there I mostly directed. Claude created pages and components in Figma, I reviewed them and asked for corrections, and I fixed a few things by hand.

The font that didn’t exist

The direction needed a pixel font, and it had to have accented characters. Claude couldn’t find one that was good enough. So, on its own initiative, it made one.

I hadn’t asked for that. I still don’t know exactly how it decided, but it looked at what existed, concluded that none of it worked, and drew a new typeface.

I asked for some corrections, mostly kerning. Then I asked for something I think says a lot about how this kind of work should go: a tool to edit the font myself. Claude built a font editor where I can draw new characters, adjust the spacing between pairs of letters and export new versions of the font. It was basically perfect from the start.

The font is called GOMO Pixel. Claude also made a 30-second specimen video for it, with 118 glyphs and a soundtrack it synthesized itself, with almost no input from me.

Pushing past standard

Not everything was good on the first try. Some components came out quite standard, the kind of thing you see on a hundred sites. When that happened, I asked for variations, and then variations of those, until we found what I was after.

Writing was the bigger problem. The first texts read like an AI wrote them. So, with Claude’s help, I made a writing skill. Claude went through my emails and old articles and worked out how I write, down to the punctuation I use and the words I don’t.

Now my case studies and articles start as an interview. I answer questions in voice notes, Claude asks follow-ups until there’s enough material, and the draft comes out in my voice. This article was written the same way.

From Figma to code

Moving the design to code was close to exact, because the Figma file was built on tokens (colours, type sizes, spacing) and on components. Claude produced the desktop, tablet and mobile versions, and I adjusted them: spacing, some flows, columns with fixed widths that should have been fluid.

Once the site was in code, Figma stopped being the reference. The code became the source of truth, and Figma became a sketchbook.

Then came the details, which is where the site has the most fun. When you hover over the logo, the mark rebuilds itself from 8x8 pixels. On the 404 page, the “4” crumbles and its pixels pile up on the floor. Pages move into each other with a transition.

For these, I described what I wanted and asked for options before anything was implemented. Claude showed them side by side on the canvas in Claude Desktop, so I could compare them without opening code files. I picked A, B or C, Claude implemented it, and then we adjusted it together. The page transition adds 1.6 KB of JavaScript, and the mobile Lighthouse score stays at 98.

1. 01

   Describe

   I say what I want, in plain words.

3. 02

   Options

   Claude shows two or three versions side by side.

5. 03

   Choose

   I pick one.

7. 04

   Adjust

   Claude implements it, and we adjust it together.

There are safeguards in the code too. If a fact I haven’t confirmed reaches a published page, the build fails. Nothing I haven’t checked goes live.

A system that keeps working

Claude also turned the site’s components into a design system inside Claude, with the fonts and all the type tokens. The site is done, but the system keeps working. When I need a component that doesn’t exist yet, or new material for GOMO, it comes out in the same language.

A partner, not a substitute

I don’t see AI replacing my work. To me it’s a partner I can work with at the same time, available whenever I am, that understands my design system, can follow it and can make new things from it.

It only works because someone knows what good looks like. A week was enough because I’ve spent 25 years learning what to ask for. Without that, the same tools give you something generic, faster.

I’m now using this process on client work too, including when the design comes from an agency. That’s the next article.