{{ invitationSentence }}
{{ invitationSentence }}
| Field | Value | Guest note | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.field }} | {{ row.value }} | {{ row.note }} |
| Artifact | Text | Copy |
|---|---|---|
| {{ row.artifact }} | {{ row.text }} |
| Check | Status | Action | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.check }} | {{ row.status }} | {{ row.action }} |
| Proof item | Current value | Follow-up | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.item }} | {{ row.value }} | {{ row.followUp }} |
A wedding invitation card has to do more than look pretty. It carries the host line, couple names, ceremony date, time, venue, address, reception note, RSVP method, reply deadline, attire guidance, and any compact detail note that guests need before they decide how to respond.
Printed invitations and digital invitations solve the same information problem in different ways. A printed card needs readable type, enough white space, and a size that works with the chosen envelope or paper stock. A phone-first invitation needs a clean image, short wording, and a reply path that survives messaging apps. In both cases, the invitation should make the event clear without turning the card face into a planning document.
RSVP wording is where many invitation mistakes become expensive. A clear reply method and deadline help with meal counts, seating, travel planning, and follow-up messages. QR codes can make the reply path easier, but they also hide a destination until scanned, so the printed line should still make sense to a guest who cannot or does not want to scan.
Invitation etiquette has conventions, but it is not a fixed script. Formal, family-hosted wording may fit a traditional ceremony, while warm, minimal, destination, or reception-focused phrasing may be clearer for another celebration. The useful standard is whether the card tells invited guests who, what, when, where, and how to respond without adding private planning details that belong on a wedding website or enclosure.
Build the invitation from the event facts first, then tune the visual style and handoff artifacts after the preview is complete.
The most important result is the card preview, but the preview is not the only proof. A clean-looking card can still be incomplete if the RSVP Details table shows No scannable payload, if the Print Checklist marks Text fit as Review, or if the share strip says the direct card link is stale.
| Visible cue | Meaning | Best follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Ready to share | Most checklist rows are ready, and the current card is close to final. | Scan the RSVP QR, proof the names, and test the exported PNG or PDF at final size. |
| Needs review | One or more checklist rows need attention, often RSVP handoff, deadline, or text fit. | Open Print Checklist and fix the first Review row before sharing. |
| Draft only | Core card facts are missing or the card has too many unresolved checks. | Complete names, date, time, venue, and RSVP details before treating the design as final. |
| RSVP QR ready | The selected RSVP method has a scannable handoff value and QR is turned on. | Scan the code from the preview or export and verify the guest-facing action. |
| Link draft | The card-only link is missing or no longer matches the edited fields. | Use Copy link again after the wording and card details stop changing. |
Do not overread a ready badge as a complete wedding-stationery proof. It does not confirm postage, envelope fit, guest list accuracy, venue spelling, meal-count deadlines, or whether every guest can scan a QR code. Use the tool output as the invitation draft and run the final review against your actual guest communication plan.
Wedding invitation structure is a compact information hierarchy. The host line and couple names identify the celebration, the invitation sentence explains the event, the date and time tell guests when to arrive, the venue and address tell them where to go, and the RSVP line tells them how and when to respond. Optional lines such as reception, attire, monogram, and details note should support that hierarchy rather than compete with it.
Card format changes the layout budget. A portrait 5 x 7 card has room for a traditional stacked composition. A square card gives a balanced social preview but has less vertical flow. A landscape card helps long venue names and wide hero text. A 9 x 16 story card is tall and narrow, so long names and long words need stricter proofing.
The readiness badge is based on the share of checklist rows that are ready.
A score of 90 or higher displays Ready to share, a score from 70 through 89 displays Needs review, and a lower score displays Draft only. The score is a practical completeness signal, not an etiquette or print-production certification.
| Card format | Export page size | Best fit | Proofing note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portrait 5 x 7 | 127 mm x 177.8 mm | Classic printed invitation cards. | Check envelope, inserts, and postage separately from the artwork. |
| Square 5 x 5 | 127 mm x 127 mm | Compact cards, text-message previews, and square social crops. | Square mailed pieces can need special postage or handling in some postal systems. |
| Landscape 7 x 5 | 177.8 mm x 127 mm | Wide venue names, email hero images, and horizontal print layouts. | Proof the address and RSVP line because long text can spread across the card. |
| Digital story 9 x 16 | 101.25 mm x 180 mm | Phone-first sharing through stories and messaging apps. | Use shorter name styling and keep the details note brief. |
| RSVP method | Guest-facing result | QR behavior | Common review cue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wedding website link | The RSVP line points guests to the entered site and can include the reply deadline. | The QR opens the normalized web address when the address is valid. | The warning list asks for a valid domain or full secure link when the address cannot be read. |
| Email address | The RSVP line asks guests to reply to the entered mailbox. | The QR prepares a mail draft with a wedding RSVP subject and response body. | The warning list marks an invalid email address before the final card is exported. |
| Phone or WhatsApp number | The RSVP line asks guests to respond at the entered number. | The QR prepares a phone handoff when enough digits are present. | The warning list asks for enough digits to create a phone QR handoff. |
| No RSVP line | No RSVP text appears on the card face. | No QR appears because there is no scannable reply action. | Use this only when another enclosure, website, or private workflow handles responses. |
QR codes encode a destination or action, not trust. A wedding-site QR should point to a final page that guests recognize, an email QR should open the expected mailbox draft, and a phone QR should use the correct international dialing form when guests are traveling. A printed code also needs real-device testing because paper texture, ink spread, glare, and small scan size can all reduce reliability.
The wording artifacts are derived from the same invitation facts as the card. Full card wording mirrors the card text, SMS or WhatsApp text compresses the invite into a short message, and Email body expands it into a guest-facing note. Keeping these artifacts aligned prevents a common mismatch where the card, message, and email tell guests different dates, locations, or reply instructions.
The generator is a card-design and handoff helper, not a mail-room proof, guest-list system, or invitation etiquette authority. Final invitations still need human review, especially when travel, venue access, attire, meal choices, children, accessibility needs, or religious wording are sensitive.
A couple enters Sarah & Michael, chooses Joyful and warm, keeps Portrait 5 x 7, sets a June ceremony date at 4:00 PM, and adds a venue name and street address. With a valid wedding website link and an RSVP deadline, RSVP Details should show a Guest-facing RSVP line and a scannable QR payload. The summary can reach Ready to share after the Print Checklist rows are ready.
A destination wedding uses Digital story 9 x 16, Destination celebration wording, and a short details note that points guests to travel information elsewhere. If the couple names or details note are long, Print Checklist may mark Text fit as Review. Shortening the display names or moving travel copy off the card usually produces a cleaner story image.
An email RSVP card with a mistyped mailbox can still show the invitation artwork, but the warning list reports that the email address is not valid yet. RSVP Details will not provide a reliable QR payload until the address is corrected. After fixing the mailbox, scan the QR and confirm the mail draft opens with the expected wedding RSVP subject.
A planner copies a signed card-only link, then changes the ceremony time and venue address. The share area reports that fields changed after the link was created. Copying the old link would show the earlier details, so the planner should create a fresh link and use Open to proof the card-only view before sending it to guests.
Open Print Checklist and look for rows marked Review. Common causes are missing names, missing date or time, missing venue address, an RSVP method without a usable reply value, no RSVP deadline, or text that is too long for the current format.
Yes, when RSVP QR is on and the selected RSVP method has a valid website link, email address, or phone number. The QR opens that handoff action; it does not collect guest responses inside this page.
Use PDF for print proofing because it uses the selected card format size. Use PNG for image sharing, HTML for a standalone card handoff, and JSON when you need to save or audit the current settings.
The QR appears only when RSVP QR is on, the RSVP method is not No RSVP line, and the selected reply value can be turned into a scannable action. Fix the RSVP link, email, or phone number, or leave QR off when guests reply another way.
No. The link helps detect changes to the card data, but anyone with the link can view the card details. Treat it like an invitation image or forwarded message, and avoid putting private guest-specific information in the shared card.