A few observations after Apple’s WWDC25 keynote
The title of my article obviously refers to the new UI Apple presented on 9 June, which they call Liquid Glass. I won’t beat around the bush: my very first impression is that we’re in UI emergency territory, but we won’t be able to break this particular glass. Only Apple can, and obviously they won’t because they’re very proud of it.
I truly don’t know where to begin with my observations, as I’m still trying to rein in my many reactions to what I’ve seen of this new UI. Let’s see if I can break it down in sections.
Consistency and depth
Apple’s UI ‘reset’ is also accompanied by the decision to homogenise all version numbers for their platforms, so that instead of having iOS 19, watchOS 12, tvOS 19, Mac OS 16, visionOS 3, and iPadOS 19, the next iteration of all these operating systems will indicate the year (or maybe season) of their release, so we’ll have iOS 26, watchOS 26, tvOS 26, Mac OS 26, and so forth. When I first heard about this, my immediate reaction was something like, Well, it goes to show just how Apple cares about the feedback of developers, pundits, and power users. All of them have pointed out repeatedly, ad nauseam even, that Apple’s software keeps being too buggy and that Apple should really rethink the yearly release approach. And Apple’s response has been to rebrand all their platforms’ versions so that they’ll be identified by year, to reflect their yearly releases. Sigh.
Anyway, the decision to reset the version numbers and to introduce the new Liquid Glass UI design for all platforms has seemingly been taken to emphasise consistency and boost visual familiarity across these platforms. Something I’ve been always opposed to, for reasons that should be obvious by activating one’s common sense. Here’s a quick example. Among other things, Bosch manufactures washing machines, dishwashers, and microwave ovens — why do their interfaces differ? They’re all appliances made by the same brand! Because they have different purposes and you use them in different ways. Appliances made by the same brand may have some similar design choices — e.g. they all feature touch buttons — so you know that if you choose that brand, you’ll expect touch buttons instead of switches or knobs or regular push buttons. But that’s it.
Back in March 2021, in Follow-up: the feedback on my articles about Snow Leopard, and more about user interface design, I wrote:
What I’ll never tire of pointing out is that the mere fact of altering Mac OS’s interface to make it more similar to iOS and iPadOS’s works against its very usability. If the idea behind this insistence on homogenising these interfaces is to bring new users to the Mac — that is, people who only know and use Apple’s mobile devices — and welcome them with a familiar interface, then Apple is not really doing them a favour. By having a Mac OS release (Big Sur) with an interface that superficially resembles iOS’s interface and sometimes behaves in a similar way, is less user-friendly than it seems. Because when behaviours do differ — due to the fact that a traditional computer with an interface that revolves around the desktop metaphor and mouse+keyboard as input devices, is different from a phone or tablet with a Multi-touch interface — then you actually add an amount of that cognitive load you originally wanted to remove by making the two UIs (of Mac OS and iOS) more uniform. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but then it barks, then things may get a bit confusing. With this premise, it’s easy to think that making Mac OS also behave more like iOS is the necessary next step. This is likely what Apple has in mind for the future of the (Apple Silicon) Macs. But if you think about it, a design method that starts from the visuals and then has the visuals influence the workings of a system, is a method that works backwards with respect to what’s typically considered good design. The interface of a Mac, an iPhone, and an iPad should be focused on being the best for each specific device.
In the case of Liquid Glass, several design cues appear to be borrowed from visionOS, and that is hugely ironic to me if you want to bring consistency and familiarity, given that the user base of Apple Vision Pro is the smallest of all Apple’s platforms at the moment.
Also talking about ‘depth’ and ‘physicality’ when discussing the visuals of Liquid Glass is something I find rather amusing. As a material, glass is commonly used to reduce both depth and physicality. You use glass to make objects feel lighter. If you put a similarly-sized glass jar and a wooden container side by side, the wooden container will feel bulkier and more ‘present’ than the glass jar; it may even be perceived as heavier while actually being the lighter of the two. If you put a glass layer over a surface, you won’t really add depth to it, at least visually. To do so, you have to at least simulate a thick, textured layer of glass, like Nothing does with their wallpaper Glass effect for the Nothing Phone’s lock screen:
... continue reading