Why grids?
A grid is a framework, based on geometric lines, that define structures within design.
So who should use grids? Not everyone. I believe that every human being can be positioned somewhere along this line:
With designers this reflects in their work. My preference for grid based design is caused by my left-sided position on this line. But although it’s my preference, I don’t try to convince emotional people to become more rational. Because I think that emotional design plays just as an important role as rational design. It depends on the goal of the design which one is more appropriate.
So If you are a more rational thinker then grids are more likely to be your thing. If not, focus on emotional design instead.
An example
Rational design
Emotional design
I believe that in design nothing should be determined by coincidence. There should be a rational explanation for the position of every element, determined by an overlaying framework: a grid.
Which side are you on?
Andrew Rickmann
9 April 2007
It does depend on the project for me; for example, I won’t always use a grid for some personal projects.
Having said that I have found that even when I’m not using a defined and visible grid there is a notional one in my head and the result it relatively grid-like anyway. The difference being that if I am not deliberately using a grid the notional grid of the end result tends to have fewer divisions.
Wee Keat
10 April 2007
I personally prefer using grid. It’s cleaner and it’s been used for a long time in graphic design. It’s one way of ensuring that everything is properly lined up and organised.
With that said, like Andrew Rickmann mentioned, it has to depend on projects. Some projects do not require them to allow for more creativity.
Emanuel Blagonic
10 April 2007
I think that the grid should be used when you develop a larger site (in your example NYT). First, it takes you extra time, but you will benefit when you come to changing the position of elements. Nevertheless, if you use it for every site you develop (even smaller ones) you will come up with the grid for every resolution and you should put it to use more quickly - it is a time saver.
Ryan Nichols
11 April 2007
The ‘emotional’ design above basically IS poor. It’s not really a matter of taste, it’s disorganized and readers are the worse for it. Proper alignment and hierarchy make for good layout, and grids are a highly useful tool to get there.
Some people make due without them, but inevitably with those people I always find poor alignments or other missed opportunities. If they utilized at least a simple grid, they would have seen it.
Dr. Pete
11 April 2007
Anytime you’re thinking in terms of information architecture, I can’t see where an emotional design makes much sense. In that second example, I have absolutely no idea what to expect the next page to look like after I click, and that says to me that I may not be able to find the information I want.
Of course, there are art projects, design experiments, “pure” branding sites, etc., where an emotional design might make sense. From a commercial standpoint, though, if people have already found your site, trying to make the entirety of it emotionally compelling is mostly wasted effort. Better to build an emotional context around what you’re trying to sell.
Rebooted — Warnis.com v2
23 April 2007
[…] The old “emotional” design has been switched for a pretty strict grid. I’ve tried putting more emphasis on the content as well as my personal brand. […]
Harry
19 May 2007
I personally prefer non-grid designs. I like the more personal feeling the website gets without them.
Although when the content needs a structure i dont mind using them.