3 ms·

Understanding and using a grid as well as the golden ratio are not tricks. If you think they are your just don't understand why designers, artists, photographe

Understanding and using a grid as well as the golden ratio are not tricks. If you think they are your just don't understand why designers, artists, photographers, etc. use such techniques. What is more, just because the author here doesn't go into all the uses of the grid system in general, or talk about a particular grid framework like 960 or Blueprint doesn't mean grids are not valid. This guy knows his work. A look at his portfolio shows he uses the grid for more than "equalizing padding of like elements". Again, alignment, relationship between elements of content, hierarchy, all work together. On simple pages you may not benefit from a grid, but complex designs with tons of elements, and irregular blocks will always be easier to obtain more precise results with block placement and typography with a grid system. Look at the designs at 960 and tell me they could have been achieved as easily without a grid. http://960.gs/ http://960.gs/

tedkimble 16y ago
Grids are a subset of ordering mechanisms. I use ordering mechanisms (including grids) often as an architectural designer. Ordering mechanisms are a useful tool for nearly all design processes (and an ordering mechanism need not be geometrical, although for web designers they usually are, which I am not objecting to). But, by beginning with a 12 column organizing mechanism, you are saying that there is inherent worth in that mechanism. This is fine so far. But, the second you structure your layout into two or three columns -- and look at 960.gs, I don't see any that use more than three or four columns -- a 12 column grid is meaningless. What is important is now a two, three, or four column grid. What else is important is the relationship between the column sizes and spaces. Maybe all three columns are equal, maybe they are not. This depends on your design intentions. But regardless, a 12 column grid has no relation to your actual design. I imagine myself setting up a 10x10 grid with a spacing of 10 feet. This could be useful to layout columns (architectural ones, that is). But, if I decide I want a 100x70 foot discrete space and a 100x20 foot discrete space separated by 10 feet, then the grid is not relevant to my design. If it is, my only justifiable design stance is an intentional break from that grid. I don't think you are arguing that. Basically, why should a three column grid be forced to fit an arbitrarily chosen xx column grid? And did the three column grid really result because of the xx column grid? I see no relation whatsoever besides a broken justification for a design process.
Silhouette 16y ago
> Understanding and using a grid as well as the golden ratio are not tricks. If you think they are your just don't understand why designers, artists, photographers, etc. use such techniques. Perhaps, then, you would be kind enough to share the compelling arguments with the mere mortals among us? Apparently I don't understand either, and I've been exploring this field for about two decades now. I could understand an argument that a lot of people find content areas that are a bit wider than they are high aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure I've ever seen any serious data on the subject, but given where our two eyes sit in our heads, it's at least plausible. But why should that mean the width should be 1.618 times the height? As another example, why should the left column in my two-column layout be 1.618 times the width of my right column (this being the last advice I remember seeing that involved using the golden ratio in design)? Why not a 3:2 ratio in each case? Why not 16:9? Why not 1.414:1? At least the last one has some neat recursive properties, as anyone who works with A4 paper probably knows. > On simple pages you may not benefit from a grid, but complex designs with tons of elements, and irregular blocks will always be easier to obtain more precise results with block placement and typography with a grid system. What does that even mean? If I put a block at a certain place on a web page with CSS positioning, will it somehow not be where I wanted it if my styles aren't based on some regular grid system? Why are "precise results" even desirable as a general rule? Some design styles suggest a formal, regular layout. Others do not.
- sgdesign 16y ago
  This discussion is forcing me to reexamine the reason behind basic design principles, which is good! Precise results and grid-like structures are not inherently better than anything else. But the important point is that they're easier to get right. By "right", I mean, "supporting your site's message". If two blocks of texts are not aligned properly, people will notice it (even subconsciously). Does that misalignment help the message you want to convey through the site? Maybe it does, but in most cases it was just an oversight, and not a conscious decision on the part of the designer. (a counter-example: you want to promote a kid's toy, so you use misalignment to convey the idea of unstructured, chaotic fun). Same thing with the golden ration (which, by the way, I don't use myself). Maybe a 3:2 or 16:9 or whatever ratio will work better in some specific cases, but the golden ratio is generally considered pleasing to the eye, and is safer in most situations. Call it laziness, but I know that when I'm designing a new site, using a grid takes care of a lot of decisions for me. Sure it constrains the design. But in many cases, creativity is born out of contraint.

tedkimble 16y ago

Grids are a subset of ordering mechanisms. I use ordering mechanisms (including grids) often as an architectural designer. Ordering mechanisms are a useful tool for nearly all design processes (and an ordering mechanism need not be geometrical, although for web designers they usually are, which I am not objecting to). But, by beginning with a 12 column organizing mechanism, you are saying that there is inherent worth in that mechanism. This is fine so far. But, the second you structure your layout into two or three columns -- and look at 960.gs, I don't see any that use more than three or four columns -- a 12 column grid is meaningless. What is important is now a two, three, or four column grid. What else is important is the relationship between the column sizes and spaces. Maybe all three columns are equal, maybe they are not. This depends on your design intentions. But regardless, a 12 column grid has no relation to your actual design. I imagine myself setting up a 10x10 grid with a spacing of 10 feet. This could be useful to layout columns (architectural ones, that is). But, if I decide I want a 100x70 foot discrete space and a 100x20 foot discrete space separated by 10 feet, then the grid is not relevant to my design. If it is, my only justifiable design stance is an intentional break from that grid. I don't think you are arguing that. Basically, why should a three column grid be forced to fit an arbitrarily chosen xx column grid? And did the three column grid really result because of the xx column grid? I see no relation whatsoever besides a broken justification for a design process.

Silhouette 16y ago

> Understanding and using a grid as well as the golden ratio are not tricks. If you think they are your just don't understand why designers, artists, photographers, etc. use such techniques. Perhaps, then, you would be kind enough to share the compelling arguments with the mere mortals among us? Apparently I don't understand either, and I've been exploring this field for about two decades now. I could understand an argument that a lot of people find content areas that are a bit wider than they are high aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure I've ever seen any serious data on the subject, but given where our two eyes sit in our heads, it's at least plausible. But why should that mean the width should be 1.618 times the height? As another example, why should the left column in my two-column layout be 1.618 times the width of my right column (this being the last advice I remember seeing that involved using the golden ratio in design)? Why not a 3:2 ratio in each case? Why not 16:9? Why not 1.414:1? At least the last one has some neat recursive properties, as anyone who works with A4 paper probably knows. > On simple pages you may not benefit from a grid, but complex designs with tons of elements, and irregular blocks will always be easier to obtain more precise results with block placement and typography with a grid system. What does that even mean? If I put a block at a certain place on a web page with CSS positioning, will it somehow not be where I wanted it if my styles aren't based on some regular grid system? Why are "precise results" even desirable as a general rule? Some design styles suggest a formal, regular layout. Others do not.

sgdesign 16y ago
This discussion is forcing me to reexamine the reason behind basic design principles, which is good! Precise results and grid-like structures are not inherently better than anything else. But the important point is that they're easier to get right. By "right", I mean, "supporting your site's message". If two blocks of texts are not aligned properly, people will notice it (even subconsciously). Does that misalignment help the message you want to convey through the site? Maybe it does, but in most cases it was just an oversight, and not a conscious decision on the part of the designer. (a counter-example: you want to promote a kid's toy, so you use misalignment to convey the idea of unstructured, chaotic fun). Same thing with the golden ration (which, by the way, I don't use myself). Maybe a 3:2 or 16:9 or whatever ratio will work better in some specific cases, but the golden ratio is generally considered pleasing to the eye, and is safer in most situations. Call it laziness, but I know that when I'm designing a new site, using a grid takes care of a lot of decisions for me. Sure it constrains the design. But in many cases, creativity is born out of contraint.