We Are Misunderstanding Liquid Glass
Apple's "liquid glass" takes philosophical steps forward in interface design, even in the midst of missteps.
Apple’s “Liquid Glass” design language, the company’s first major visual overhaul in a decade, has been met with a tidal wave of criticism since its debut. From designers and accessibility experts to the average user, the consensus seems to be that Apple has committed a cardinal sin of design: prioritizing aesthetic flair over fundamental usability.
On the surface, these criticisms are both valid and necessary. The most forceful complaint targets the design’s profound accessibility and legibility problems. The pervasive use of transparency, blur, and distortion often leaves text unreadable against shifting, low-contrast backgrounds. As product designer Allan Yu noted, “It’s hard to read some of it… they made it too transparent” (Rogers and Ashworth). This isn’t merely an annoyance; for users with visual impairments, it can be a significant barrier, violating core principles of inclusive design.
Beyond legibility, critics point to the increased cognitive load. An interface should, as human-centered design pioneer Don Norman argues, make it easy to understand what actions are possible and how to perform them (Norman 14). Yet, by creating a "busy" and inconsistent experience, Liquid Glass often forces users to expend mental energy just to parse the screen.