On Liquid Glass
I do not think all these effects necessarily help legibility, which is as poor as it has ever been in translucent areas. The degree to which this is noticeable is dependent on the platform. In iOS 26, I find it less distracting, I think largely because it exists in the context of a single window at a time (picture-in-picture video being the sole exception). That means there is no expectation of overlapping active and inactive windows and, so, no chance that something overlapping within a window’s area could be confused with a different window overlapping.
[…]
Though these animations are not nearly as fluid as they were first shown, they seem like they help justify the “liquid” part of the name, and are something Apple has enough pride in to be called out in the press release. Their almost complete absence on MacOS is therefore notable. There are a handful of places they appear, like in Spotlight, but MacOS feels less committed to Liquid Glass as a result. When menus are summoned, they simply appear without any dramatic animation. Buttons and menus do not have the stretchy behaviour of their iOS counterparts. To be sure, I am confident those animations in MacOS would become tiresome in a matter of minutes. But, so, if MacOS is better for being less consistent with iOS in this regard, that seems to me like a good argument against forcing cross-platform user interface unification.
[…]
I am spending an awful lot of words on the MacOS version because I think it is the least successful of the two Liquid Glass implementations I have used. MacOS still works a lot like MacOS. But it looks and feels like someone dictated, context-free, that it needed to reflect the redesign of iOS.
[…]
I kept asking myself “why?” as I used iOS 26 and MacOS 26 this summer. I wanted to understand the rationale for a complete makeover across Apple’s entire line of products. What was the imperative for unifying the systems’ visual interface design language? Why this, specifically?
[…]
These new operating systems do not feel like they are achieving that level of consistency despite being nominally more consistent across a half-dozen platforms. MacOS has received perhaps the most substantial visual changes, yet it is full of workarounds and exceptions. The changes made to iOS feel surface-level and clash with the visual language established since iOS 7. I am hopeful for the evolution of these ideas into something more cohesive. Most software is a work-in-progress, and the user interface is no exception. But all I can reflect upon is what is before me today. Quite simply, not only is it not ready, I am concerned about what it implies about Apple’s standards.
This is one of those posts that I recommend taking some time (perhaps cozy up with a coffee?) and simply enjoying the thoughtful analysis provided.
[…]
I’ve upgraded all of my devices, with the sole exception being my Mac at work. I’ll get around to it, but waiting for a lull. For the most part, everything works about the same and there isn’t a jarring change from when I’m at my desk at work and my desk at home. Contrast that with someone adapting from Windows 10 to Windows 11 across devices, as many interface elements work differently. Yes, there are visually differences between macOS 15 and macOS 26, and I think the changes to macOS 26 are my least favorite of all the updates. I’ve grown to actually enjoy the iOS/iPadOS 26 changes, especially the added depth in icons and buttons and little animations to make the entire operating system feel more fluid—it’s interesting and a bit of a shift away from the minimalism trend that we’ve had over the past decade and change.
I highly recommend reading Heer’s extensively documented criticisms of Liquid Glass. He offers numerous examples of what he likes and doesn’t like about Liquid Glass, though there is much more of the latter, leading to this delicious line, “I could keep going with my nitpicks, so I shall.” Nevertheless, it’s essential to acknowledge that Liquid Glass is here to stay, while also offering constructive criticism that can help push Apple to improve the user experience.
[…]
I’m also intrigued by Heer’s idea that Liquid Glass might signal a broader “Apple OS” branding, since I’ve been using OS as a shorthand for Apple’s stable of operating systems for some time now.
Twenty-five years after alpha channels began appearing in our user interfaces, I think many of us have taken for granted the soft shadows and smooth corners enabled by translucent pixels. Back then, there were plenty of people who were worried about the performance impact of all these effects, just as there are now about Liquid Glass.
This try-hard justification made me think of Johnson’s post. It is over a thousand words and I do not believe I view these icons differently after finishing it. The new icons are fine — very Microsoft, in that the company has produced some spectacular-looking 3D renders and illustrations completely unrelated to the actual icons I will be seeing on my desktop when this update is released.
Previously:
- How to Turn Liquid Glass Into a Solid Interface
- Tahoe Window Corners
- Liquid Glass: Content vs. Controls
- Liquid Glass Is Cracked
- Shipping Liquid Glass
- One Size Does Not Fit All
- “No” Part 2
- Assorted Notes on Liquid Glass
3 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
I've been using macOS since the Cheetah, but this is the first version I just couldn't stick with. Liquid Glass is way too distracting — and pretty buggy — and it totally wrecked my ability to get work done like I used to. Same deal with iOS 26; luckily I rolled back to iOS 18 before Apple quit signing it though.
And it's not only the visuals — they threw in breaking changes with zero heads-up, forcing you to rewire all your habits from scratch.
This is the first iteration where I actually think Windows feels more consistent. I wouldn't have grabbed my M4 Mac Mini last year if I'd seen this coming. It's a real bummer.
> The new icons are fine — very Microsoft, in that the company has produced some spectacular-looking 3D renders and illustrations completely unrelated to the actual icons I will be seeing on my desktop when this update is released.
Indeed.
I understand, especially with "squircle jail", that Microsoft _can't_ properly embrace that design language on Apple's OSes. But their apps on Windows, _their own OS_, doesn't really make use of these designs either. The _actual_ Office icons look like mere imitations of the original design pitch, and like mere a refresh of the _old_ icons from 2018. Which is fine. But then what was the whole point of this exercise? Why were these mockups: https://www.theverge.com/news/789533/microsoft-office-new-icons-design made? You have thin colorful sheets of glass, with a gloss and a drop shadow, at an angle. The actual production icons have none of that; they're flat, and they add a design element (gradients, for faux depth) that wasn't actually in the original design.
The new icons are fine, if a bit empty. At this point — and perhaps that gets us back to macOS Tahoe / Liquid Glass, it's hard to retroactively comprehend what the icons even mean. Excel perhaps _vaguely_ resembles a 2x3 grid of table cells. PowerPoint might be a pie chart, which is not in fact the key functionality of PowerPoint. Teams shows two people, which, fair enough. Likewise, as has been discussed, can people figure out that "gray wrench on top of a hexagonal puck with an Apple logo" means Disk Utility? That two red sheets on top of a blue blob means Shortcuts? And while I like the added color accents in the TV app, why does its look nothing like a TV, nor suggest "playback" or "video"?
Say what you want about Apple using Macromedia Director to trick people into thinking Copland was further along than it was; at least the actual UI theme _did_ look almost exactly like that. They didn't make a UI mockup that looked cool then tried to work their way back to whether it's even possible to implement, or practical to use. It was. And perhaps portions of Liquid Glass aren't.
(I appreciate that The Verge, too, refuses to call it "Microsoft 365". Office is a much better brand name.)
