Grids are a subset of ordering mechanisms. I use ordering mechanisms (including grids) often as an architectural designer. Ordering mechanisms are a useful tool

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.