Note: One week ago marked the 14th anniversary of Steve Jobs’ passing. This article on Apple’s new Design System and Language has been in progress for several weeks. As a lifelong follower of Apple and a web developer for two decades, the post was intentionally delayed for a week in honor of Steve and his appreciation for the skeuomorphic design Apple users have long known and loved.
Apple’s Liquid Glass design language represents a bold departure from traditional interface aesthetics and their use of a Skeuomorphic Design. And its implementation in iOS 26 has sparked significant controversy among users and user interface designers alike. This translucent, glass-like interface system bears striking philosophical parallels to Google’s Material Design, which was announced at I/O 2014, yet the execution and user reception have been markedly different.
When Google unveiled Material Design over a decade ago, it introduced a revolutionary approach to digital interface design. Matías Duarte, Director of Android User Experience, described the concept as imagining what if pixels didn’t just have color, but also depth? Material Design synthesized classic design principles with the possibilities of technology, creating a visual language based on paper and ink that could expand and reform intelligently. The design philosophy emphasized three core principles: material as a metaphor, bold and intentional graphics, and motion that provides meaning.
Material Design succeeded because it offered clarity, consistency, and predictability while mimicking the physics of real-world interaction. Surfaces moved naturally, responded to touch, and transitioned fluidly, giving users a sense of control they hadn’t experienced previously. The design language used familiar tactile interactions with visual cues grounded in reality, featuring deliberate color choices, large-scale typography, and intentional white space.
Apple’s Liquid Glass, announced at WWDC 2025, shares Material Design’s fundamental goal of creating interfaces that feel more natural and intuitive. Like Google’s approach, Liquid Glass draws inspiration from real-world materials, specifically combining the optical properties of glass with a sense of fluidity. The design features translucent materials that reflect and refract their surroundings while dynamically transforming to bring greater focus to content.
However, where Material Design emphasized clarity and legibility, Liquid Glass appears to prioritize visual aesthetics over readability, something that Material Design didn’t do. The new interface makes UI elements translucent and bubbly, creating what Apple describes as a new level of vitality across controls, navigation, app icons, widgets, and more. Elements can lift up into Liquid Glass temporarily during interactions, and the material dynamically morphs between different app states.
Unfortunately, Liquid Glass has generated significant user complaints about physical discomfort and usability issues. Multiple reports indicate that the new design is causing headaches, eye strain, and even vertigo among users. The visual effects make icons appear tilted, particularly when using dark wallpapers or alternative icon themes, creating disorienting optical illusions.
According to the Nielsen Norman Group, transparency effects that define Liquid Glass are causing serious accessibility concerns. Beta testers have reported contrast ratios as low as 1.5:1, well below WCAG minimum standards. Users complain that text becomes unreadable against busy backgrounds, with notifications camouflaged against wallpapers and even text appearing on top of other text. One usability expert noted that anything placed on top of something else becomes harder to see, yet Apple has designed an interface that makes transparency and layering central features. The Nielsen Norman Group’s analysis of Liquid Glass also revealed that Apple is prioritizing spectacle over usability, creating an interface that is restless, needy, less predictable, less legible, and constantly pulling focus rather than supporting seamless access to content. Users must now relearn basics while enduring what critics describe as a constant parade of visual stunts
The constant visual movement and morphing effects appear to be triggering balance issues in some users. The subtle animations and distortions create what experts call “vestibular mismatch,” where constant, unexpected movement causes symptoms ranging from eye strain to full-blown nausea and vertigo. One user with epilepsy reported that the “icons ‘bounce’ slightly” as part of the new Liquid Glass setup, immediately triggering seizure alarms.
The difference in reception between Material Design and Liquid Glass highlights how the former succeeded where the latter struggles. Material Design maintained readability while adding depth and meaning through shadows, elevation, and clear visual hierarchy. Google’s approach used bold colors and strong graphics to grab attention while making information easy to read and understand at a glance.
According to the Interaction Design Foundation, Material Design also prioritized user-centric design, focusing on creating interfaces that were easy for everyone to use, regardless of their experience level. The design language provided consistent experiences across different devices while maintaining accessibility standards. Motion in Material Design was meaningful and provided clear feedback about user interactions.
In contrast, Liquid Glass seems to prioritize visual innovation over practical usability. While Apple has built accessibility overrides into the system, including reduced transparency and increased contrast options, these feel like afterthoughts rather than core design considerations. The default experience requires many users to enable accessibility features just to use their devices comfortably.
Here’s the thing, folks: Design professionals have expressed mixed reactions to Liquid Glass. While some appreciate Apple’s move away from flat design and the introduction of more expressive interfaces, many are concerned about the practical implications. One product designer, noted that it’s challenging to read some parts due to excessive transparency. Others worry about the fragmented experience as third-party apps struggle to adapt to the new aesthetic.
With that… The broader design community fears that Apple’s influence will lead to a wave of poorly executed copycats that ignore accessibility considerations. Unlike Material Design, which provided clear guidelines for maintaining usability while implementing its aesthetic principles, Liquid Glass appears to push designers toward prioritizing visual appeal over functional clarity.
When you work with the technology systems for a living, your opinion should be heard.