> I don't need a designer who can write code full time, but I wish that all of them were forced to do a course in layout with css. Obviously flexbox is solving

> I don't need a designer who can write code full time, but I wish that all of them were forced to do a course in layout with css. Obviously flexbox is solving a lot of this pain, but I think it would still be beneficial. Right. My point is that designers (and coders) that push designs that generate the pain - is the reason why now get things like flexbox. If we were all designing to fit within, say absolute positioning, no-one would create, implement and refine flexbox. Browsers wouldn't include it. This is an extreme oversimplification, but it illustrates the point I was trying to make. On the subject of CSS - I was a big fan of the idea of CSS-regions - based on simple design ideas from classic desktop publishing packages. But I also see how they were a bad fit for the corner w3c and friends have designed themselves into with CSS. FWIW Håkon Lie did a good job pointing out problems with integrating the idea into the html/css paradigm: https://alistapart.com/blog/post/css-regions-considered-harmful https://alistapart.com/blog/post/css-regions-considered-harm... I'm not entirely convinced CSS columns are super-good and regions couldn't be made to behave/have a responsive fallback - but I see how laying out text with regions would be yet another different layout model -- and that it would break with the "HTML for semantics, CSS for presentation"-idea that is now being more-or-less thrown out in favour of "JavaScript all the things until it looks like we want". On a similar note, I just (re)discovered that CSS Shapes are a thing - although (still) not supported in Firefox: https://alistapart.com/article/css-shapes-101 https://alistapart.com/article/css-shapes-101 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1098939 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1098939