It&#x27;s easy to find designs that are bad ideas for web pages. The most obvious culprit is a design that&#x27;s excellent for a magazine layout. Such designs typically don&#x27;t take into account the document flow nor the idea that different people open their browsers to different resolutions and browser window sizes. Heck, some won&#x27;t even take into account different browsers with different capabilities. I think I understand where you&#x27;re going with the &quot;what is a web page?&quot; bit, but it doesn&#x27;t necessarily apply. Especially since a web page can be whatever anyone wants within the limitations of a browser, but that doesn&#x27;t mean a design works based on some person&#x27;s idea of what they think a web page is. In most cases a design is limited by the browser, not necessarily by the code of the page.<p>I have no idea what you mean by your second sentence.<p>And then, are you referring to my mindset or some other mindset? Because I fail to see how you can know my mindset on the matter. If it&#x27;s the other, I would agree. Except I would say that &quot;fixing&quot; something in terms of making it do something it wasn&#x27;t intended in the first place may possibly create more problems than we are attempting to fix. I would suggest attempting new things to see if they work, which there are some doing just that. I would point out that flexbox is an example of this.<p>I&#x27;m excited with flexbox and have started pushing to make use of it more often, when warranted. It&#x27;s hard to switch current code to it, but I think it&#x27;s worth it. But, in the end, someone will eventually start complaining about its limitations and that it needs to be &quot;fixed&quot;. Then we&#x27;ll be back where we started, it&#x27;s inevitable.