Running an IT Agency Site on WiaTech: Notes After the First Month

WiaTech Theme Rebuild Log: How I Stabilized an IT Services Site

I started this rebuild on a Monday morning because two things happened at once: a client asked for “one small homepage change,” and I realized I was afraid to touch the site. Not because the change was difficult, but because the site had become a fragile stack of past decisions—page templates layered on top of page builders, CSS overrides that only made sense when I wrote them, and a navigation structure that didn’t match how visitors actually moved through the content.

I picked WiaTech – IT Services & Development WordPress Theme as the new base for one reason: I wanted a reset that would let me make fewer exceptions. I wasn’t looking for a theme that “does everything.” I wanted one that would stop me from improvising. In my experience, improvisation is where maintenance debt begins.

This is not a feature breakdown. It’s a record of the decisions I made, the problems I was trying to solve, and how the site behaved after I put it back into production. I’m writing it the way I’d write a private ops note: calm, specific, and focused on what I’d want to remember later.

The actual problem wasn’t design. It was operational confidence.

When I say the site was “fragile,” I mean this:

• Changing one section often created a second change somewhere else.
• Mobile behavior wasn’t predictable. It looked fine until it didn’t.
• The homepage had become a collage of campaigns rather than a map.
• The service pages were inconsistent—different layouts, different copy patterns, different calls to action in random places.
• Performance wasn’t catastrophically slow, but it was uneven. Some pages loaded smoothly, others felt heavy for no obvious reason.

The deeper issue was confidence. If I can’t confidently make a change during a normal week, I’m not really operating the site—I’m tiptoeing around it. That’s not sustainable for any IT services site because services sites change often: new case studies, revised offers, hiring pages, and ongoing content updates. Even if you don’t publish every day, you need a system you trust.

So I approached the rebuild like a stability project, not a redesign project.

My working rule: decide structure first, then let design follow

I used to rebuild in the wrong order. I’d start by choosing hero sections, fonts, color accents, animation details. It feels productive because you can see progress immediately. But it locks you into a page layout before you’ve resolved the underlying structure.

This time I did the opposite:

1. Define what pages must exist and what each page is responsible for.
2. Reduce layout variance so editing doesn’t create surprises.
3. Make navigation reflect user intent, not internal org charts.
4. Confirm mobile behavior for the core browsing flows.
5. Only then adjust design details.

The moment I wrote those steps down, the rebuild became calmer. It gave me a way to say “no” to impulse changes.

I began with page inventory: what stays, what goes, what merges

Before moving anything, I listed every page and asked a simple question: “Does this page have a job?” If I couldn’t answer quickly, it probably didn’t.

I found the usual clutter:

• Old campaign pages that were effectively dead but still indexed.
• Service pages that overlapped and confused the navigation.
• A blog category structure that didn’t match the site’s actual content volume.
• Multiple “About” pages with conflicting messaging because different people had touched them over time.
• A “Solutions” section that had turned into a dumping ground for anything that wasn’t a service.

So I did a small cleanup plan:

• Keep the core: Home, Services (as a top-level), individual service detail pages, Work/Case Studies, About, Contact.
• Keep only one place for trust signals (testimonials, certifications, process). Don’t scatter them everywhere.
• Merge “Solutions” into services if it’s not truly distinct.
• Reduce blog categories to something maintainable. If you have 6 categories but you post once a month, the structure is lying.

The goal wasn’t minimalism for its own sake. The goal was fewer places where the site can contradict itself.

I mapped intent paths instead of designing pages in isolation

An IT services site isn’t a product catalog. Most visitors arrive with one of a few intents:

• “Do you do this specific thing?” (service confirmation)
• “Are you credible enough?” (trust verification)
• “Can you work with my constraints?” (timeline, stack, budget, process)
• “How do I contact you without wasting time?” (contact friction)
• “Do you understand my context?” (industry fit)

If I design pages without considering these intents, the site becomes a brochure: visually pleasant but operationally unhelpful.

So I mapped a few common paths:

• Landing on a service page from search → scanning for fit → checking work proof → contacting.
• Landing on the homepage from a referral → looking for quick clarity → browsing 1–2 service pages → contacting.
• Landing on a blog post → noticing who wrote it → checking services → browsing work → leaving or contacting.

I didn’t need analytics to do this. I needed to be honest about how people behave. The simplest version of this exercise changes how you build the site: you start caring about what happens between pages, not just within a page.

Navigation: I stopped treating it like an org chart

This is a common mistake: the navigation mirrors internal departments rather than user decisions. It happens because we know our own structure too well.

I changed the navigation to reflect questions a visitor is actually trying to answer:

• What do you do? (Services)
• Have you done it before? (Work/Case Studies)
• How do you work? (Process, but kept light)
• Who are you? (About)
• How do I talk to you? (Contact)

I kept the navigation shallow. Deep navigation trees look “complete,” but they often hide uncertainty: you create more menu items when you’re unsure what matters.

I also resisted the urge to add “Resources” as a top-level item. If resources are not central to your conversion flow, they can live under a blog page. “Resources” can become a trash drawer fast.

Homepage: I treated it like a routing page, not a pitch deck

In my previous version, the homepage tried to do everything:

• Multiple hero messages.
• Too many service highlights.
• A long sequence of sections that felt like a presentation.

It wasn’t that the content was wrong. It was that the homepage behaved like a place where you “sell.” In reality, the homepage is where you route.

So I rebuilt the homepage around three practical outcomes:

1. Clarity: what the site is and who it’s for, in plain language.
2. Direction: where to go next (services or work).
3. Confidence: enough proof to keep browsing.

I cut anything that looked like a “portfolio wall” on the homepage. Work belongs on the work page. On the homepage, I used selected work examples as signals, not as a library.

I also kept the homepage editable without fear: fewer special blocks, fewer nested structures, fewer “this section only works if you never touch it.”

Service pages: I standardized the structure to reduce future editing cost

Service pages are where IT services sites usually become inconsistent. Over time, different authors add sections, remove sections, change headings, and the page becomes a patchwork. That inconsistency becomes visible to visitors, even if they can’t articulate it.

So I created a standard service page pattern—less about “content length,” more about content sequence:

• First: what the service is and what it solves, without slogans.
• Next: what the engagement typically looks like (scope boundaries, not promises).
• Then: what evidence supports it (case study references, approach summary).
• Finally: what a next step looks like (contact, scheduling, inquiry).

I avoided long lists. Lists feel “complete,” but they encourage marketing phrasing and feature dumping. Instead, I wrote in short, practical paragraphs that are easy to edit later.

The key reason to standardize isn’t aesthetics. It’s maintenance. Standard structure means you can update content without reinventing the page each time.

I made a conscious decision about “Process” content: enough, but not heavy

Visitors care about process more than we think, but they don’t want a methodology lecture. They want reassurance:

• Do you have a real process?
• Will I know what’s happening?
• How do you handle change?
• How do you communicate?

So I wrote process content that answers those questions without turning into a manifesto. I avoided naming frameworks. I avoided diagrams. I avoided “stages” that look like a consulting deck. I wrote it like I’d explain it to a technical stakeholder who has been burned before: clear, calm, and specific.

Work/Case Studies: I focused on reading flow, not volume

A common misconception is that a work page must be long to be credible. In practice, a work page must be readable.

I structured case study summaries so a visitor can skim:

• Context: what the client needed.
• Constraint: what made it difficult.
• Outcome: what changed after delivery.

I avoided inflated outcomes. Not because outcomes aren’t important, but because inflated outcomes sound like marketing, and marketing triggers skepticism. For an IT services site, skepticism is the real competitor.

If a case study cannot be explained calmly and concretely, I don’t publish it. That’s my internal filter.

The first week: I treated the rebuild like a controlled rollout

I didn’t flip everything live and hope for the best. I treated it like a rollout:

• I finalized core templates first (home, services listing, one service page, work listing, one case study, contact).
• I tested on mobile early, not at the end.
• I checked the forms and email pipeline before worrying about decorative details.

Then I pushed it live and watched for breakage:

• Layout shifts after load.
• Missing spacing on certain screen sizes.
• Unexpected behavior in the header and mobile menu.
• Any section that looked “fine” but behaved strangely when you interact with it.

This is where I feel theme choice matters indirectly: a theme with consistent structural patterns reduces the number of weird surprises. You still need to test, but you’re less likely to discover “this block only works in this one context.”

Mobile behavior: I tested real flows, not just screenshots

Most people “check mobile” by scrolling the homepage and tapping a few things. That’s not testing. That’s browsing.

So I tested flows:

• Landing on a service page from a search result → scanning → scrolling → contacting.
• Landing on a blog post → reading → checking services → returning.
• Opening and closing the mobile menu repeatedly (because bugs often show up there).
• Filling out the contact form with one hand (because that’s how many people do it).
• Navigating back to the previous page and seeing if the scroll position makes sense.

I also watched for subtle friction:

• Buttons too close together.
• Sections that look fine but are hard to read because of line length.
• Sticky headers that take too much vertical space on small phones.
• Visual hierarchy that collapses on mobile (all headings start to look the same).

On a services site, mobile is often the first contact channel even if the final decision happens on desktop. If mobile feels annoying, people quietly leave.

Performance: I aimed for consistency, not perfect scores

I don’t optimize for benchmark perfection anymore. I optimize for predictability:

• Pages should load in a consistent order.
• The layout should not jump as images load.
• The site should feel stable while scrolling.

So I focused on removing variability:

• I standardized hero section behavior across pages.
• I kept image usage consistent so the browser doesn’t have to guess layout sizes.
• I avoided stacking too many heavy sections on one page.
• I reduced unique page templates because unique templates often pull unique assets.

This is “quiet performance work.” It doesn’t feel dramatic, but it’s the kind of work that reduces support issues later.

Admin workflow: I rebuilt the site for future-me, not present-me

This is where I usually fail: I build a nice front-end and forget that I have to run the site after launch.

So I created admin rules that future-me can follow when I’m busy:

Content editing rules I wrote down

• Every service page must follow the same heading pattern.
• No service page gets a custom layout unless it solves a real constraint.
• Every page must remain editable without needing custom CSS patches.
• If a section requires a “special explanation” to edit, it probably shouldn’t exist.

Update workflow rules

When updates happen (theme updates, plugin updates, content updates), I follow the same sequence:

1. Check homepage and one service page on mobile.
2. Check one case study page on desktop.
3. Submit a test contact form and confirm deliverability.
4. Only then consider the update “safe.”

It’s boring. That’s the point. Stability is boring.

Common mistakes I corrected during the rebuild

Mistake 1: trying to showcase too many services on the homepage

I initially tried to list everything: development, maintenance, consulting, cloud, security, integrations, support. It looked complete, but it also looked like noise. A visitor doesn’t need to see your entire service catalog at once. They need to find the path that fits them.

So I reduced homepage service mentions to a smaller set of primary directions. The detailed catalog lives on the services page.

Mistake 2: adding “trust signals” everywhere

It’s tempting to add badges, testimonials, and stats on every page. But repetition without context becomes decoration. Instead, I placed trust signals where they matter:

• A short credibility section on the homepage.
• Evidence tied to service pages in a relevant way.
• Case studies that speak for themselves.

Mistake 3: letting the blog behave like a separate site

Many services sites have a blog that feels disconnected. Different typography, different content tone, different navigation flow. That disconnect signals inconsistency.

So I aligned blog layout and typography to the main site flow. I didn’t over-invest in the blog design. I simply made it feel like part of the same system.

User behavior observations after launch

I didn’t rely on fancy dashboards. I watched behavior in the simplest ways:

• Which pages people visit after the homepage.
• How often they move from service pages to work pages.
• Whether blog readers continue browsing or leave immediately.
• Where people seem to stop scrolling.

The main improvement I noticed wasn’t a sudden spike in inquiries. It was a change in browsing shape:

• More movement between service pages and work pages.
• Less “one page and leave” behavior on mobile.
• More contact page visits after viewing a case study.

This is the kind of signal I trust. A services site doesn’t always convert instantly. But if people browse deeper, it usually means the site feels coherent.

I avoided a trap: “non-technical visitors want more visuals”

I hear this often: “Non-technical visitors need more visuals.” That can be true, but it’s incomplete. What non-technical visitors need is clarity. Visuals can support clarity, or they can distract from it.

So I used visuals as structure aids:

• Light section separation.
• Clean spacing that helps reading.
• Images that support context rather than overwhelm it.

I avoided the heavy agency trope: endless hero animations, exaggerated shapes, and vague slogans. Those things can look modern but feel untrustworthy when a buyer is trying to reduce risk.

In IT services, perceived risk is the real decision driver.

Decision logic that kept me from spiraling into endless tweaks

During rebuilds, I’ve learned to set decision boundaries. Otherwise you can tweak forever and never ship.

My main boundary was:

If a change increases future maintenance cost, it needs a strong reason.

That rule stopped me from adding:

• one-off page sections that require special editing steps,
• decorative elements that break on certain devices,
• layout patterns that look nice but don’t support a user decision.

I also wrote a second boundary:

If I can’t explain why a section exists in one sentence, it doesn’t belong.

Those two rules saved me more time than any tool.

Light technical notes: what I checked for stability

I’m not going to list optimization tricks. Instead, here’s what I check because it correlates with fewer surprises:

• Layout stability: do elements shift after load?
• Interaction stability: does the mobile menu open and close cleanly every time?
• Form reliability: does contact submission reliably reach the inbox?
• Content editing safety: can I edit a service page without breaking its structure?
• Consistency: does the site feel like one system across pages?

The technical goal wasn’t to prove the site is “fast.” It was to ensure the site feels predictable.

I also considered long-term content needs: hiring, partnerships, and maintenance

An IT services site isn’t static. Even if you don’t publish often, you need to adjust:

• hiring pages when recruiting,
• partnership pages when collaborating,
• maintenance pages when refining offers,
• case study updates when projects mature.

So I made sure those pages can exist without special templates. That’s part of stability: you shouldn’t need a rebuild just to add a hiring page later.

A note on “service positioning”: I kept language plain on purpose

I resisted clever positioning language. Not because positioning is unimportant, but because clever language often becomes vague. Vague language forces visitors to infer. Inference increases uncertainty.

So I wrote copy as if the reader is a busy operations manager:

• What you do.
• What it applies to.
• How engagement usually works.
• What proof exists.

I kept it calm. Calm language reduces suspicion. Suspicion kills service conversions.

How I would explain this rebuild to another admin

If another admin asked what mattered most, I’d say:

• Standardize service pages so content updates don’t create inconsistency.
• Treat the homepage as routing, not pitching.
• Ensure mobile flows are smooth for real browsing behavior.
• Build the admin workflow you’ll actually follow.
• Reduce exceptions. Exceptions become hidden debt.

If you’re working across different themes in general, I often think in terms of the broader WordPress Themes ecosystem as a reminder: themes often tempt you to build for demonstration. But most real admin work happens after the demo. A stable site is one that remains easy to maintain six months later.

Closing: what changed for me after a month

After a month, what I value isn’t that the site looks “new.” It’s that I can work on it without anxiety.

• I can update service copy without worrying about layout breakage.
• I can add a case study without reinventing the page structure.
• Mobile feels consistent across core pages.
• The site reads like one system rather than a pile of sections.

That’s the quiet win.

I’m not treating this rebuild as a finished artifact. I’m treating it as a system I can operate—calmly—while the business continues to move.