Hypothesis Semantics is more influenced by design, then HTML. Even with perfect HTML, it still won't be pertfectly semantic due to bad design. Definitions Perfect HTML: The most minimal, semantic markup possible (and lets face it, with no design, its god damn easy) Bad Design: One that is "bad for coding", meaning lots of rounded corners, drop shadows, things that don't line up, different font size for everything, and the like Good Design: One that is "good for coding", everything is aligned, everything is done styling the default elements (no need for classes and ID's because the same element has different styles) etc Proof Definition of Semantics: Semantics, adjective: "relating to meaning" Dictionary.com Semantic HTML means using HTML tags for their implied meaning Therefore: is semantic HTML. This: is NOT semantic HTML. It is the most semantic way of re-creating the design, but it is not semantic HTML (ignoring the ID's, I put them there to illustrate things <div>'s are usually used for) Therefore, if the design influences the HTML, then design influences the semantics of a site. With no design, pure, semantic HTML can be achieved easily. Meaning then, it is design that controls the amount of non-semantic HTML used on a page (as non-semantic HTML is used to re-create the design in browsers) So it can be concluded that design controls semantics MORE than the coding itself. (Not talking about the most semantic way of recreating a design, that indeed is soley the coders job) Does it mean that we should scrap design to achieve perfectly semantic HTML? No. It means some designers need to pull their head out of the ass and learn some basic HTML so they understand the best way of doing things (some things add 1% visually, but 10% HTML+CSS getting the bitch to work; so it should not be used to create an optimal site).