<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Simple on Morgan Murrah - morganwebdev.org</title>
    <link>https://morganwebdev.org/tags/simple/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Simple on Morgan Murrah - morganwebdev.org</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 09:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://morganwebdev.org/tags/simple/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Building Static Site Infrastructure for Whatcom</title>
      <link>https://morganwebdev.org/posts/whatcom-healthcare-alliance-build-out/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 09:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid>https://morganwebdev.org/posts/whatcom-healthcare-alliance-build-out/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;why-static-websites-work-so-well-for-civic-information&#34;&gt;Why static websites work so well for civic information&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A site like &lt;a href=&#34;https://whatcomhealthcarealliance.org/&#34;&gt;https://whatcomhealthcarealliance.org/&lt;/a&gt; is a good reminder that not every important website needs a complicated stack. It can be a simple, fast, reliable place where people can find the information they need without friction. That is one of the strongest arguments for static websites: they make it easier to put clarity first.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Static websites are often described as minimal, but that is not a weakness. In public information, a minimal approach is often exactly what makes a site trustworthy and usable. A static site can be built around clear writing, well-structured pages, and a straightforward path to the answers a visitor is looking for.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
