[emilbratt]

I always thought that the masonry layout looked good but made it harder to get a good overview of the images.

[halapro]

A lot of web "design" is about how it looks rather than how usable it is. At no point any stakeholder stops and actually uses the product, they scroll up and down, enjoy the pointless "scroll in" animations and say "kewl". Never mind the text that is at 50% opacity until you scroll to the exact intended point, because nobody actually attempted to read it.

[satvikpendem]

> At no point any stakeholder stops and actually uses the product, they scroll up and down, enjoy the pointless "scroll in" animations and say "kewl".

Actually that's exactly what they do. They like the animations while some people, especially devs, do not. But they don't use it multiple times, because they would be able to see how it gets annoying after the first time.

[Sharlin]

The biggest problem is that it's good if your images are all landscape or all portrait, but not when mixed.

[SahAssar]

The whole point of a masonry layout is if you have different aspect ratios. Otherwise a masonry layout is just a normal grid.

[ethmarks]

What?

The defining feature of masonry is that it supports mixed aspect ratios. That's its whole thing. If you aren't mixing landscape and portrait images, you shouldn't be using masonry layout.