A proposal for New landing page design (kfess)

[kfess]

I'm planning to paste a screenshot for each section and post them here, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.
@lmktfy I've opened a discussion for my redesign direction.

---

Following up on my comment in #55774 (comment) with a redesign direction for k8s.io, mostly inspired by rust-lang.org.

Hero area

The "Kubernetes" name doesn't stand out much right now. I'd put it front and center with a short tagline, plus three clear entry points ("Get Started", "Download", "Read the Docs") and the current release version somewhere visible.

Planet scale / Never outgrow / Run K8s anywhere

These phrases feel abstract and don't really say what Kubernetes does. Something concrete like Resilient / Scalable / Portable might land better. I'd also drop the "Google running billions of containers a week" framing, since the project is community-driven now.

Features

11 items in a flat list are hard to scan, and scaling sits next to dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 with equal weight. Grouping them (workloads, networking, ...) as cards would help.

Case studies

These feel dated. Featuring a wider range of companies, plus some adoption numbers (e.g. CNCF data), would be stronger. A horizontal-scroll layout could work.

Get Involved

Role-based entry points ("new to Kubernetes", "running it in production", "want to contribute") would help visitors find their path. Could sit lower on the page.

[lmktfy]

Thanks.

Screenshots or sketches welcome!
On the dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 card: we can remove that card, leaving the page in place. Your design proposal is welcome to suggest what cards / items we have, and which to drop.

[kfess]

Here's a first take on the hero area (screenshot).
It might look like a fairly common style these days, but personally I find it easy to read. This is just a starting point, so I'd love to hear what you think.

I'm using AI to help build and validate these mockups.

[TineoC]

And I think there's not much value on showing the latest release

[shurup]

This is great! However, I also doubt we need the Download button here.

Does Get Started lead here? IMHO, the current main docs page addresses the biggest questions/concerns a user might have (what is Kubernetes and how can I try it), and it should be enough for that.

Another thing I'd like to highlight here as a button is Get involved, which perhaps could simply lead to the existing Community page. (However, it lacks showcasing KubeCons and other big offline events, which are essential for getting involved.) Otherwise, it can be an anchor link to the separate section on the main page with links to: a) events, b) contribution guides, and c) social media.

[kfess]

I mage a few changes to the hero area.

• Moved the download link further down the page instead of keeping it here.
• "Get Involved" button now goes to the Community page.
  • On the Community page missing KubeCon and other offline events: how about we handle that as a separate issue?
• Changed the font of the Kubernetes logotype.

[lmktfy]

how about we handle that as a separate issue?

SGTM

[shurup]

Thank you! I like how it looks now. Totally agree on a separate issue to improve the community page's content (so I just created #57089).

[kfess]

The next area is the overview section (previously Planet scale / Never outgrow / Run K8s anywhere section).

[lmktfy]

I like it. Maybe each of those cards becomes its own small page?

[kfess]

Thank you, I am glad you like this part.

I'm planning to add a "Learn more" link from each card to a concept page (for example /docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/deployment/).
Also, if this is OK to submit, I can open a PR for just this part. What do you think?

[lmktfy]

In the Markdown, we could have a Markdown file for each card we want to show on the main page.

[kfess]

I am planning to add "Get Involved" section at the bottom of the page. This is the screenshot.

[kfess]

• Added a "Build a career" card. How do you think about this?

[TineoC]

I would change "Want to contribute" to "How to contribute" or "Contributing"

[TineoC]

For the action buttons below, I would suggest using shorter text with icons and consolidating it into a single button instead.

[lmktfy]

How about making the button be a white arrow on a blue heptagon?

[kfess]

Making it a button and working in the heptagon idea both sound cute to me. I will think it over.

[kfess]

Removed some descriptions and organized the features into a table-style layout.

[kfess]

@shurup @TineoC I also wanted some business-side numbers on the page too, so I took a few from the CNCF Annual Survey and added them near the top. How do you think about this idea? (These are from the annual report though, so they'll need updating manually once a year.)

[kfess]

I think the UI could be polished further, but how does it feel as an amount of content?

[TineoC]

I think 4 is enough

[TineoC]

Is a good idea, but I'm worried about how fast those numbers get outdated from the CNCF Annual survey.

[lmktfy]

Amount of content: good!

[kfess]

This screenshot was taken at a mobile screen size.
I'm aware that dark mode and RTL support still need to be addressed.

[lmktfy]

Nice. It's a better look than the current page IMO.

[TineoC]

Is possible to have a better contrast on the navbar

I think we could have a white logo on top of the dark background

[kfess]

This was caused by an unintended CSS change on my side, not a deliberate design choice.
I'll fix it so the navbar has proper contrast.

[lmktfy]

I wonder if we can use the mobile nav from #55851

Overall, let's assume that a separate work package makes the mobile nav better.

[kfess]

Another topic I would like to discuss: https://kubernetes.io/partners/#iframe-landscape-conformance

I'd like to add a few project-scale numbers near the top of the main page, similar to how the cncf.io homepage shows its stats. Kubernetes is a very large project now, and having some indicators that show that would make the page stronger.

Two I looked into so far are the contributor count (around 99,000 from DevStats) and the number of Certified Kubernetes offerings, which I'd show as a breakdown the way CNCF does with project maturity (65 Distributions, 62 Hosted Platforms, 17 Installers).

Does something like this sound in scope?

[lmktfy]

We could add some figures at the top of the main page. We would really like some way to keep the numbers current with very low toil. I think that low-toil approach is important.

[kfess]

Agreed, I also think automation is a must here to avoid stale numbers.

If we add some, I was thinking of the community size (contributor count) and the number of certified platforms. Any other figures you'd suggest? Would love to hear ideas.

[lmktfy]

I like simple. Let's make the main page better and leave room for more improvements.

[TineoC]

@kfess Do you have a draft pr for this work? I'd like to have a preview of this in netlify. We could leave our suggestions there too

[lmktfy]

I saw a thumbs up from SIG leadership, BTW. There's no competing proposal, so let's move it forward.

A hint: the new landing page could drop nearly all of our customizations to the look of Docsy, eg the custom header background. Keep the top nav the same; anything else is fair game (open to improvement).

[natalisucks]

Hold up @lmktfy! I don't see a thumbs up from SIG leadership? Correct me if wrong, but I'm directly tagging once again @reylejano @divya-mohan0209 @katcosgrove @salaxander @dipesh-rawat for their thoughts – I would love somewhat majority consensus before we push ahead with a whole website redesign :)

[katcosgrove]

Thanks @natalisucks!

I'm not opposed to a redesign, but I'm not sure of the direction here. This feels like it's designed to sell Kubernetes (like an actual startup website). Is that the direction we want? IMO our website needs to be functional and accessible as our highest priorities. "Selling" Kubernetes isn't as important for an open source project that's already sort of an industry standard.

[lmktfy]

Oops, I must have got that wrong. I thought I had seen a thumbs up from Divya, and also making a draft PR is a low risk action.

The overall idea I had was to invite people to open a new discussion for each proposal, but we only got one. We should try to have a different landing page design to the one we have now, although obviously only if we're sure it's better.

[divya-mohan0209]

Thanks @kfess for this proposal (and the initial tag) & @natalisucks for the cc.

While I'm not opposed to the change, there are a couple of procedural things we may want to look at before proceeding

• SIG Docs owns the Kubernetes website; however, since this impacts the way our users first perceive/experience the project, I'd recommend, before ANY PR, to bring the tracking issue up first at the Kubernetes SIG Docs meeting and then subsequently at a Kubernetes SC meeting. There might also be CNCF involvement.
• The above will also bring more perspectives, potential collaborators, and (probably) different design options into the fold. Do we want someone to lead this initiative and coordinate logistics?

[kfess]

This thread is getting a bit long, here is a recap of the current UI direction (desktop width) as of August 12, 2026.
There are also some UIs I have not touched yet: the absolute beginner's guide, Upcoming KubeCon, and Case Studies.

---

---

---

---

[TineoC]

I like it :)

[kfess]

@kubernetes/website-maintainers
I would like SIG docs website-maintainers to take a look at this new landing page design before I move further. This thread has the latest screenshots for each section. Feedback on direction and scope would be very welcome.

(The detailed points that have already been raised in the comments above I will address going forward, but for now this is roughly the overall direction.)

[nasa9084]

As a Japanese (left-to-right locale), no objection for the new design but maybe having screenshots with right-to-left locale would make the discussion better, isn't it?

[natalisucks]

@kfess as a note on the UIs not yet touched, i would propose not to redesign the case studies, because as a side issue, i would like to discuss with the SIG about the possibility of dropping the case studies from the website altogether as no-longer needed.

thanks for the helpful ping of us website maintainers! I've tagged other leads as well as sharing this in our leadership group so you can get some more comments

[Andygol]

For those who would like to see the discussed homepage design in action, I've prepared a PR #57028 with elements inspired by illustrations created by @kfess.

[reylejano]

With the large impact of changing the landing page, in my opinion, we should seek out a UI expert and an accessibility expert. For example, we may consider implementing the POUR (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust) framework/principles (an approach to accessible digital design) as part of the design change to improve the site's accessibility. This will likely require SC and possibly CNCF involvement.
+1 to @divya-mohan0209's comment to discuss at a SIG Docs meeting and a SC meeting

[kfess]

Thanks everyone for the reviews, and thanks to those who gave feedback on the mockups along the way. It helped a lot.

+1 on involving UI and accessibility experts, and on bringing this to the SC.
Reading the comments, this is a much bigger change than I had in mind when I opened this discussion.

So one question for the SIG: is it right to keep building on my mockups, or is this better handed to people with that expertise from the start? Given how far the impact of this page reaches, I find myself leaning towards the latter. My guess is that starting from an expert's perspective would get us to a good design faster.

By the way, I also saw these notes from the SIG Docs meeting agenda:

• Can have a draft PR before public Steering meeting
• Next public Steering meeting is 9/2
• Maciej also asked to bring visuals

If a draft PR would give the discussion a starting point, I can submit a PR.
(It is just a UI mockup though, with accessibility and a lot of the other details not accounted for yet.)

[TineoC]

Check last SIG docs meeting recording.

You're good to open a draft on your own and show case it in the steering committee meeting (the more you have prepared in beforehand docs, pictures, a Netlify preview, the better)

But to get this to reality it must go over steering and wait for their approval as well as those experts you mentioned before.

[natalisucks]

@TineoC Thanks for trying to be helpful here Christopher, but please note that this is NOT the approach for this work. SIG Docs would hope to present this in collaboration with @kfess and others, not that this be a lone effort, since this is directly part of the project that we own and administer. I would really appreciate that you not speak on SIG Docs leadership's behalf.

But to get this to reality it must go over steering and wait for their approval as well as those experts you mentioned before.

To get this to reality, @kfess, I think there are two options: firstly yes, this is a big undertaking, so if you have a draft PR that you want to open so that SIG Docs can have a general agreement on the direction of the redesign (may not be final designs but some general agreement is a good start), then we can present this with you to Steering, get their soft LGTM, then likely start working on how to make that "general direction" of the design accessible, with the right experts in accessibility and UI. We don't want to hand them an empty slate, but at the same time, would want to listen to what their feedback is, which is why we would just have a draft direction with Steering's OK, and then when eventually a design is finalized, going back to Steering for final approval. This will also mean a few people are involved with helping to organize the work, too, because you don't have to be doing this on your own!

The other option of course is for us to engage experts from the start as you say, and I would honestly try and do this with the CNCF's help and (possibly) budget, since this is indeed a big change. I have already sent off a couple of questions to CNCF staff about this to see if its feasible and possible to do so, and will report back.

@reylejano @katcosgrove @divya-mohan0209 @dipesh-rawat @salaxander do the two options above sound about right to you?

[katcosgrove]

Thanks @natalisucks! With both of my hats on, yeah, both of these options sound right. :)

[kfess]

Thank you @natalisucks. As a first step, I will open a draft PR for option 1 so SIG Docs has something concrete to agree on.
Once the draft PR is up, I would like to keep discussing what we show to the Steering Committee, including its contents.

[lmktfy]

Tip: to discuss the general approach (not just this one proposal), we can also comment on the redesign issue, #55774