# Are We Looking Through Too Much Glass? Gelatinous glass on every digital screen - interfaces layered with translucent, blurred backgrounds. Buttons that float like frosted glass over subtle gradients. It's undeniably modern, clean, even elegant when done right. It can create a sense of depth and context, hinting at the layers beneath. But, when _everything_ is slightly transparent, when text sits on a busy background blurred just _so_, readability seems to suffers. Accessibility takes a hit too, contrast ratios can be a nightmare on these subtle, shifting surfaces, and the efforts to copy Apple's design without consulting the manifesto mean accessibility is an afterthought in the catch-up game. Samsung's reactive transformations in their mobile OS is the top-of-mind example. ![[Pasted image 20251027122813.png]] It becomes a visual crutch rather than a deliberate choice. What's interesting is even Apple, the spear of this style in macOS and iOS, emphasizes **restraint** in their Human Interface Guidelines when discussing materials like glass. They advise using it judiciously to enhance clarity or create hierarchy, not just for aesthetic flourish. Yet, sometimes the execution feels less restrained than the principle suggests. * Apple's Human Interface Guidelines: * **Use translucency and blur purposefully:** Primarily to provide context, suggest hierarchy, or indicate interactivity, not just for decoration. - **Maintain legibility:** Ensure that text and important UI elements remain clear and readable when placed over blurred or translucent backgrounds. This often requires careful consideration of contrast and complexity. - **Consider performance:** Overuse of complex visual effects like blur can impact performance, especially on older devices.* Glassmorphism is a powerful tool, but maybe it's time we started asking _why_ we're using it in each instance, rather than defaulting to it. Is it genuinely improving the user's understanding and focus, or just making things look fashionably glassy at the expense of usability? As a matter of taste and synergy, there are brands where glass makes sense, and those where it distills core values. **Takeaways:** * **Restraint is Key:** Apple's own guidance suggests using glass effects purposefully, not ubiquitously. How often is that principle actually followed? * **Tooling Limitations:** Seyi's article, [Apple’s Liquid Glass UI Reveals the Design Tooling Glass Ceiling](https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/apples-liquid-glass-ui-reveals-the-design-tooling-glass-ceiling-designers-aren-t-helping-either-0d1a73f2b630) raises interesting points - are designers constrained by tools like Figma? Does this push towards simpler, replicable (if sometimes overused) effects like basic glassmorphism, while true innovation (like Apple's shaders) remains harder to achieve? * **The Zeitgeist Effect:** Good, bad, and in-between, Apple's ability to create new language in the design zeitgeist (like "Liquid Glass") is always energizing and sparks necessary conversations about where UI is heading. ```eof