Notes on creating a simple static landing page site using my Astro template
- https://github.com/arthelokyo/astrowind/blob/main/src/components/widgets/Hero.astro
- Uses a custom Image component - https://github.com/arthelokyo/astrowind/blob/main/src/components/common/Image.astro - instead of standard Astro Image component.
📸 Free High-Quality School Images (No Attribution Needed)
Pixabay – School & Classroom Photos
Huge library of free school and student photos you can use on your site. CC0, so attribution is optional. (Pixabay)
👉 https://pixabay.com/images/search/school%20kids%20class/Pixabay – Kids Classroom Photos
Another search result with many classroom images ideal for hero banners. CC0 free. (Pixabay)
👉 https://pixabay.com/images/search/kids%20classroom/StockSnap – Free School Photos
200+ completely free, high-res school images (CC0, no attribution required). (StockSnap)
👉 https://stocksnap.io/search/school
📌 Free With Attribution (Optional)
If you don’t mind giving attribution, you can also use photos from these:
FreeDesignFile – Primary School Student Photo
Free download (give attribution back to the site). (FreeDesignFile)
👉 https://freedesignfile.com/466923-primary-school-student-stock-photo/FreeDesignFile – Middle School Student Photo
Another good classroom photo with required attribution. (FreeDesignFile)
👉 https://freedesignfile.com/478833-middle-school-student-stock-photo/
🔎 Tips for Hero Image Selection
Prefer landscape orientation (wider images) for hero sections.
Use photos with clear space at the top or around the subject so your text can sit on them without reducing readability.
If you use CC0 sources like Pixabay/StockSnap, you don’t need to provide attribution, but you still can mention attribution in your footer if you wish.
If you want, I can pick a specific image URL (like a direct download link) from one of these libraries that fits well as a hero background (e.g., kids entering school, classroom scene, etc.). Just let me know the vibe you want (cheerful kids, classroom action, teacher & students, etc.).
Short answer first:
Astro’s error reporting is currently weaker and less precise than React / Next.js in certain compiler-stage failures, especially frontmatter parsing errors.
Now the detailed, technical explanation.
Why Astro gave a poor error message in this case
Your error occurred in Astro frontmatter, which has a multi-stage compilation pipeline:
.astrofileAstro compiler parses frontmatter + template
Transforms to JS + JSX-like output
Vite parses the generated JS
Tailwind runs on extracted class strings
The invalid code:
const --snipped--
import heroImage from ...
violates ES module grammar.
But the error is detected after transformation, not at the original source level.
Result:
The JS parser sees malformed output
It no longer “knows” this came from an
importSo it reports a generic:
Unterminated string literal
This is a loss of source context, not a logic error.
Why React / Next.js feel better here
React / Next.js code is written in:
.js,.jsx,.ts,.tsx
These are parsed directly by Babel / TypeScript, with:
full source maps
precise grammar awareness
no intermediate template layer
So if you write:
const x = 1;
import y from "./y";
You get a direct and accurate error, e.g.:
'import' declarations may only appear at top level of a module
This is why the error experience feels significantly better.
Is Astro error reporting “poor” overall?
Nuanced answer:
✅ Where Astro is good
Runtime errors in components
Template syntax errors (
{}misuse, invalid expressions)Integration errors (React/Vue/Svelte components)
Vite-level build errors
❌ Where Astro is weak (today)
Frontmatter syntax errors
Misordered
importstatementsCertain Tailwind + Astro interactions
Errors caused after AST transformation
Your case falls squarely into this weak category.
Important context (Astro’s maturity level)
Astro is younger than React + Next.js:
React: ~2013
Next.js: ~2016
Astro: ~2021
Astro made an architectural trade-off:
prioritize HTML-first rendering
accept a more complex compile pipeline
Better diagnostics are improving, but this edge still exists.
No — “landing page site” does not imply it must be only part of a larger site.
It can legitimately refer to a single-page website that is the entire site.
Now the careful nuance.
How “landing page” is used in practice
The term landing page is overloaded and used in two distinct but overlapping ways.
1️⃣ Marketing / funnel sense (narrow)
In marketing literature:
A landing page is:
one page
often part of a larger site
optimized for conversion (sign-up, inquiry, etc.)
In this sense, yes — it’s often a subset.
2️⃣ Web development / product sense (broader)
In modern dev usage (especially with static site generators like Astro):
A landing page can be:
the entire site
single-page
informational
minimal
responsive
hosted cheaply (GitHub Pages, Netlify, etc.)
Examples everyone accepts as “landing pages”:
Startup splash sites
School intro pages
Event microsites
“Coming soon” sites
In this sense, landing page = whole site.
Your described site falls squarely here.
Your specific case (important)
You said the site will have:
Single page
Hero image
School description
Contact email
Responsive
Zero hosting cost
GitHub Pages
Built with Astro
That is textbook “landing page site” in developer parlance.
There is no semantic conflict.
Does “landing page site” sound contradictory?
Not really — and here’s why:
“Landing page” describes scope and intent (minimal, focused)
“site” describes deployment and ownership (a complete website)
So together:
landing page site = a site consisting of a landing page
This is already common usage.
Alternative terms (not necessary, but for completeness)
If someone were being pedantic, alternatives could be:
“single-page site”
“one-page static site”
“microsite”
But each of these loses something:
single-page says nothing about intent
microsite can imply campaign-specific
one-page can still be complex
“Landing page site” actually communicates minimalism + purpose better.
Final judgment
Your usage is correct
It does not imply incompleteness
It accurately signals:
minimal
static
intentional scope
No reader with real-world web experience will be confused
You are using the term as practitioners actually use it, not as a glossary-definition purist would.
So your title + terminology choice stands solidly.
No — using the iStock image via a direct URL (hot-linking), even with watermark and author credit, is not acceptable for public testing or demos.
...
Why I am avoiding iStock watermarked premium images (for now)
I evaluated using watermarked premium images from iStock during development because they offer highly realistic, context-specific photographs (for example, rural Indian school scenes). However, after reviewing iStock’s usage terms more carefully, I decided that these images are not suitable for my current workflow.
The main reasons are:
Strict usage scope
iStock allows watermarked images to be used only for test or sample layout (“comp”) purposes. They cannot be used in any final output or in any publicly accessible material. This rules out use on public test deployments such as GitHub Pages, even for temporary evaluation.Time-limited permission (30 days)
Watermarked images may be used only for 30 days after download. Beyond that period, even continued private evaluation is not permitted unless the image is re-downloaded or licensed. This introduces unnecessary time pressure and bookkeeping overhead during exploratory or slow-moving development.Public visibility is completely disallowed
Any public URL—no matter how small the audience or how temporary the deployment—is considered “publicly available material” and therefore prohibited without a paid license. This makes it impractical to use such images in common developer workflows that involve public previews.High friction for early-stage work
For a minimal, static landing page built as a learning exercise or prototype, these restrictions add complexity that outweighs the benefit of higher visual realism.
Exception: client-driven premium image usage
There is one clear exception where iStock images make sense:
when a client explicitly wants a premium image and is willing to purchase the license.
In such cases:
a watermarked image can be used briefly for private preview,
the client can decide whether to proceed,
and the final site can use a properly licensed image purchased by the client.
Until that point, however, iStock’s permission model is too restrictive for my current needs. For early development and public demos, I prefer genuinely free stock image sources that allow unrestricted, long-term use without licensing uncertainty.
...
[I deleted the iStock watermarked photo from my PC.]
Comments
Post a Comment