I don't have the energy now to debate the merits of grid based designs. I was just responding to the guy above who called the OP's use of grid "rubbish" and "t

I don't have the energy now to debate the merits of grid based designs. I was just responding to the guy above who called the OP's use of grid "rubbish" and "tricks". No a grid is not right for every 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. The Golden Ratio goes back to the Ancient Greeks as they discovered that it appeared frequently in geometry, nature, etc. In classical composition, dividing a rectangle (canvas) in thirds vertically and horizontally, the "power points", that is, the place where a subject derives strong interest and "movement" exist at the intersections of these divisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio has some good info. As I said, I'm too tired to debate you, but if you don't see the point in using a grid, by all means, don't use it. > 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? Of course not. It is just a tool to help the designer, a guide. You still have to write just as many styles if not more. Grids are just tools that can help make your designs more consistent. A fantastic resource is here: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/04/14/designing-with-grid-based-approach/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/04/14/designing-with-gr... > Why are "precise results" even desirable as a general rule? Some design styles suggest a formal, regular layout. Others do not. Now you're just being a contrarian. Of course nothing is a rule that cannot be broken, but unless you are doing a free, "avant garde" layout, you probably want some precision, some sense of form.