Do you like Liquid Glass on Mac?

[n-evo]

So you don't know what UX design is, cool, could have just said that earlier on.

Most of us don't code (though I did teach coding as a part of my UX classes).

Haha funny. Anyway, I didn’t say that after founding your own OS you’re forced to pick up all development by yourself. Obviously you’re gonna focus on what you can do best for the endeavor: UX design.

I asked you earlier, maybe you missed it, when you jumped from Windows to Mac. It wasn't some sort of gotcha question, I was genuinely curious to know if you've noticed a decline in the software quality since you first made the change and how it improved your workflow.

Totally missed it sorry! I jumped from Windows to Mac fulltime when Microsoft failed to materialize Windows Longhorn and kept dragging on Windows XP. Which already felt archaic compared to Mac OS X (released earlier that year). So Mac OS X 10.3 Panther was where I completely came on board. But before that I had an older iMac G3 running Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah - Jaguar on the side.

The biggest degradation of quality has been caused by the integration of iCloud (MobileMe at the time). That’s where - in my opinion and experience - the system's Achilles' Heel lies. It’s the one aspect I experience most issues with, to this very day unfortunately.

I’m not sure if people simply don’t know, forgot or just think of the past as more rosy but Mac OS X, from day one, has been a perpetual cycle of rough patches, refinement, interface changes, etc. So when I read something like “a new OS fails to meet standards that Apple itself sets” I just think to myself:

• Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah looked really cool but was an absolute train wrack to work with. So much many Mac users were dual booting Mac OS 9.2 up to Mac OS X 10.3 Panther. And not just because of the poor app support Mac OS X had at the time.
• The initial version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger had so many issues Apple actually put a big green sticker on the retail box saying it contained the upgraded v10.4.3, which was deemed finally usable. During the Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger days it was really a case of what v10.4.x fixed, v10.4.y broke again. In the end it required so much patching it went all the way up to v10.4.11.
• Apple had to delay Mac OS X Leopard with its over the top 3D Dock and space theme. By the time it shipped in 2007 (originally slated for 2005) performance was so bad they had to come up with Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, which of course left all PPC users (some with only a 1-year old iMac G5) out in the cold.
• Mac OS X Lion had all sorts of iCloud issues that could bring the system to its knees.
• And then there was OS X Yosemite, which felt just about as unfinished as macOS Tahoe does now.

So what near-perfect trackrecord is there exactly you’re now upholding macOS Tahoe to? I honestly have no idea.

In any case. Most of the interface changes are as always superficial. The Menu Bar is still here. The Dock is still here. Windows work largely the same. The keyboard shortcuts I’ve been using since 2003 are still the same. Hot Corners are still here. And my apps still work. All in all the experience has been more positive than negative.

The introduction of Exposé and later Spotlight were game changers. As was Handoff and all the other ways macOS and iOS started working together. Apple brought more and more iOS apps to macOS, which I love. I’m still getting to know macOS Tahoe but I already find myself using the Phone app a lot. But yeah, the interface is rough around the edges. It’s all fingernail deep though and really doesn’t affect my day to day work. The only thing I’m genuinely pissed off about is Apple getting rid of compact tabs in Safari. But hey, they still have a much better track record of maintaining features compared to just about anyone else. And then those overly round corners. Ugh.

So I’m eager to find out all the ways Apple is going to improve on macOS Tahoe. Maybe I’ll even get my compact tabs - or something similar / even better - back. I’m hopeful. This isn’t the end of the line after all.

 

[n-evo]

It could look like a supermodel for all I care. The problem is that it treats me like garbage, now more than ever. At least with Linux and, to a certain extent MacOS, I feel like the system respects me. I'd much rather use a plain, but thoughtfully designed and user-friendly system, than a beautiful, user-hostile mess.

I don’t even know how to respond to this tbh.

 

[fstoprm]

Just fugly. The rounded icons, the interface... it's all simply horrible.

 

[unsui_grep]

Haha funny. Anyway, I didn’t say that after founding your own OS you’re forced to pick up all development by yourself. Obviously you’re gonna focus on what you can do best for the endeavor: UX design.


Totally missed it sorry! I jumped from Windows to Mac fulltime when Microsoft failed to materialize Windows Longhorn and kept dragging on Windows XP. Which already felt archaic compared to Mac OS X (released earlier that year). So Mac OS X 10.3 Panther was where I completely came on board. But before that I had an older iMac G3 running Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah - Jaguar on the side.

The biggest degradation of quality has been caused by the integration of iCloud (MobileMe at the time). That’s where - in my opinion and experience - the system's Achilles' Heel lies. It’s the one aspect I experience most issues with, to this very day unfortunately.

I’m not sure if people simply don’t know, forgot or just think of the past as more rosy but Mac OS X, from day one, has been a perpetual cycle of rough patches, refinement, interface changes, etc. So when I read something like “a new OS fails to meet standards that Apple itself sets” I just think to myself:

• Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah looked really cool but was an absolute train wrack to work with. So much many Mac users were dual booting Mac OS 9.2 up to Mac OS X 10.3 Panther. And not just because of the poor app support Mac OS X had at the time.
• The initial version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger had so many issues Apple actually put a big green sticker on the retail box saying it contained the upgraded v10.4.3, which was deemed finally usable. During the Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger days it was really a case of what v10.4.x fixed, v10.4.y broke again. In the end it required so much patching it went all the way up to v10.4.11.
• Apple had to delay Mac OS X Leopard with its over the top 3D Dock and space theme. By the time it shipped in 2007 (originally slated for 2005) performance was so bad they had to come up with Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, which of course left all PPC users (some with only a 1-year old iMac G5) out in the cold.
• Mac OS X Lion had all sorts of iCloud issues that could bring the system to its knees.
• And then there was OS X Yosemite, which felt just about as unfinished as macOS Tahoe does now.

So what near-perfect trackrecord is there exactly you’re now upholding macOS Tahoe to? I honestly have no idea.

In any case. Most of the interface changes are as always superficial. The Menu Bar is still here. The Dock is still here. Windows work largely the same. The keyboard shortcuts I’ve been using since 2003 are still the same. Hot Corners are still here. And my apps still work. All in all the experience has been more positive than negative.

The introduction of Exposé and later Spotlight were game changers. As was Handoff and all the other ways macOS and iOS started working together. Apple brought more and more iOS apps to macOS, which I love. I’m still getting to know macOS Tahoe but I already find myself using the Phone app a lot. But yeah, the interface is rough around the edges. It’s all fingernail deep though and really doesn’t affect my day to day work. The only thing I’m genuinely pissed off about is Apple getting rid of compact tabs in Safari. But hey, they still have a much better track record of maintaining features compared to just about anyone else. And then those overly round corners. Ugh.

So I’m eager to find out all the ways Apple is going to improve on macOS Tahoe. Maybe I’ll even get my compact tabs - or something similar / even better - back. I’m hopeful. This isn’t the end of the line after all.

All of that's pretty inline with my experience. Eerily so! I still have my first G3 MacBook Pro. Pretty sure that thing weighs 50lbs.

Definitely feel you on iCloud integrations. I was particularly hoping for some improvements in Tahoe. I posted elsewhere about some FOMO I'm having about some of the under the hood features, and I was excited to see how Spotlight would evolve when compared to Raycast or Alfred. And you're certainly right about the history UI missteps that we've had to endure but eventually overcame. I was just really shocked about how badly they've missed the mark on Tahoe's release having run the betas since day one. I kept expecting big improvements every release that never materialized. I was very open-minded about the UI when I first downloaded it. I knew most of the marketing videos they showcased at WWDC was BS but I was still excited. But the more I dug in the more upset I became. It was beyond the usual bugs and bold interface choices, there seemed to be a real misreading about basic UI/UX fundamentals that Apple has itself championed and enforced. Worse yet, it must have passed through untold number of executives in order to ship. After the Apple Intelligence rollout, and their continued infatuation with emoji-centric and lame Image Playground initiatives, I was hoping that they had sobered up and would get down to core technology improvements while delivered a more polished and mature UI. The return to materiality, bringing back more skeuomorphic designs had been fated for a while, I was just really shocked by the results. IMHO, this was in their wheelhouse and they should have and need to nail it.

As far as abandoning Apple goes, it probably won't happen for me, but I could see myself as a less enthused user who is more open to checking out other platforms and technologies. I really don't want to do that and realistically probably won't. I got into programming because of the Mac. I'm more of a hobbyist these days but I still keep up with it daily, and WWDC continues to be one of my favorite days of the year, but I guess my starting to question my faith.

 

[thebart]

So how do we decide if a feature is a waste?

There will always be some people using features that are released, even if they are pretty bad ones.

Well, I use stage manager.

I think it's actually the only new feature since whatever MacOS version was in 2021 that makes a difference to me on a daily basis. That and being able to increase the font size in Finder. Most of the other features seem to be about the Apple ecosystem which I have no use for, not owning anything but a Mac and not using any Apple services.

If it makes you feel better, Apple has as far as I can tell spent zero effort on stage manager since its introduction on MacOS. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years they decide "nobody" wants it and get rid of it. I'll be sad and you can rejoice. C'est la vie.

 

[loby]

Well, I use stage manager.

I think it's actually the only new feature since whatever MacOS version was in 2021 that makes a difference to me on a daily basis. That and being able to increase the font size in Finder. Most of the other features seem to be about the Apple ecosystem which I have no use for, not owning anything but a Mac and not using any Apple services.

If it makes you feel better, Apple has as far as I can tell spent zero effort on stage manager since its introduction on MacOS. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years they decide "nobody" wants it and get rid of it. I'll be sad and you can rejoice. C'est la vie.

I use Stage Manager and I think more people do then you may think...

When it first came out I thought, "Neat trick, I use App Expose so no need". App Expose to me is quicker and less screen real-estate that moves around and did not think I would use Stage Manager that often.

But I use it on occasion and it is a nice option to have. I use both depending on what my workflow is at the time.

Sometimes, Stage Manager effort to get what I want on the screen out-ways the benefit sometimes and having to click a few times to get to a window and the screen moves around is a pain at times (as App Expose is quick and right to the point), but Stage Manager has its usage and benefit and I do not think it will go away as an option. It has its place.

 

[TumbleDryer]

i hear what you're saying, but this, above: what's your source for this info?

is there actual evidence that macusers are thinking about moving to windows? because i have a hard time believing most (non-tech-oriented) ppl would want to change OSes, for any reason. of course, that's just my theory; is your statement also theory?

I posted it in this very thread that Im thinking of leaving after 30 years. Post #315 if you want to check it out. I can't seem to multi quote on MacRumors. This forum is not particularly functionally great at times unless Im missing something.

 

[TumbleDryer]

I use Stage Manager and I think more people do then you may think...

When it first came out I thought, "Neat trick, I use App Expose so no need". App Expose to me is quicker and less screen real-estate that moves around and did not think I would use Stage Manager that often.

But I use it on occasion and it is a nice option to have. I use both depending on what my workflow is at the time.

Sometimes, Stage Manager effort to get what I want on the screen out-ways the benefit sometimes and having to click a few times to get to a window and the screen moves around is a pain at times (as App Expose is quick and right to the point), but Stage Manager has its usage and benefit and I do not think it will go away as an option. It has its place.

I used Stage Manager once, cringed, and never opened it again. Spaces was perfect. Squeeze your mouse (or whatever button you assigned) and you instantly had as many desktops as you like with whatever content you wanted however you wanted it laid out. No clutter. No 3d animations. Just your content exactly how you wanted available instantly. I don't even know what I'm looking at in Stage Manager or why it has to be so complicated.

 

[DesignFusion]

This is the first time ever that I'm questioning their design choices with the OS platforms, I've always found them quick sleek. Apple use to have this minimal, functional precision. This to me is none of that.

I hate it, im quite worried about the trajectory here. It's so heavily stylised it gets old after 2 minutes, It's made using the interface a chore. Legibility is awful, horrid slow transitions, it feels clunky and messy.

From a design standpoint I don't even think tweaks will fix it enough for it not to be garish. Its a real shame. If this was one of my concepts it would have been deleted.

 

[maflynn]

This is the first time ever that I'm questioning their design choices with the OS platforms

LOL, sorry couldn't resist.

I'm generally happy with apple's UI, but I will say when they moved away from skeuomorphism I wasn't happy.

 

[TumbleDryer]

This is the first time ever that I'm questioning their design choices with the OS platforms, I've always found them quick sleek. Apple use to have this minimal, functional precision. This to me is none of that.

I hate it, im quite worried about the trajectory here. It's so heavily stylised it gets old after 2 minutes, It's made using the interface a chore. Legibility is awful, horrid slow transitions, it feels clunky and messy.

From a design standpoint I don't even think tweaks will fix it enough for it not to be garish. Its a real shame. If this was one of my concepts it would have been deleted.

This is exactly the problem. Styles come and go and once they go you need to spend time and money to reinvent the wheel. For me speaking as a designer it's a pointless waste of money and resources plus an annoyance to the user when things keep needlessly changing. I personally try to shepherd my clients away from 'trendy' designs as they hold far less value. Id rather give my clients a timeless design that will last far longer and only revise smaller parts of it as the 'need' arises and not change it for the sake of it.

Im no big tech business guy, I've no idea how Apple works internally but I personally would look into creating a timeless OS look that will never go out of style (which is incredibly easy to do). The previous OS was pretty much that but typical Apple had to add in stupid UX decisions because they refuse to treat each OS as its own entity. Once the timeless design is in place for the OS you can then focus most resources on the hardware and push those new capabilities instead of '50 new emoji' and 'new trash can icon'.

The UI design I posted earlier, while very quickly put together, shows how a clean and simple design can offer more information with less clutter than current edition of Finder and can look good and contemporary no matter what the current design trend is. The lack of superfluous elements means less distraction as the content becomes the focus not the garish effects, there's less chance of bugs because of less elements to deal with and I imagine once the design rules are set would be much easier to code full stop.

The evermore complicated and convoluted software just to say its new never made sense to me. If it's great in the first place you can save money and focus resources elsewhere. In short do it right first time. Massimo Vignelli (famous designer) once said 'if you do it right it will last forever' and I completely agree.

All that being said people are sheeple and all want to be seen as 'trendy' and will go out of their way and make their lives harder just to fit in. Crocs for example... completely inefficient as a shoe but everyone wants them because one person once said they were 'cool'. FYI.. they're not! lol. So no matter what you do, there will always be people that like it and those that don't.

 

[TumbleDryer]

.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is a good comparison of the straight up downgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe

Sequoia first, Tahoe second

 

[Sniper08]

I think I must miss a lot of the LG "magic" b/c I turned on reduce motion.

I don't get motion sickness but I use stage manager and if I have to look at the app switch animation 100x a day I may really barf. (The animation is not even smooth.)

It sucks that Apple designers can't differentiate b/t large, screen-wide animation vs small, subtle animation. I swear they get offended if you don't like everything they serve you. NO ANIMATION FOR YOU!

When the Reduce motion option became available I immediately turned it on; and now ironically I just take it as part of the experience and can’t imagine having it switched off.

I did try it recently out of curiosity, and the animations honestly made the OS feel hyperactive. The reduced motion just calms everything down.

My understanding of the motion and animations in most operating systems is to build a link between cause-and-effect, and that the 'reduce motion' option was to accommodate people who suffer from motion sickness/cognitive dysfunction. But, I'm not sure how you can relay cause-and-effect visually without bringing back that motion.

That said, when I said in motion I may have been too broad. I specifically like the reflective aspect of all the different colours and images along the UI controls. It doesn't require any more animations, if I'm understanding this effect is built into some physics engine that's always running. I'm not sure what the system load is, however.

Because a feature isn’t used by you and me doesn’t mean it’s a waste. I know quite a few people at work who do actively use Stage Manager. And in general operating systems have been stagnant for a while now. The biggest change since Mac OS X Tiger for me personally is the pretty seamless way my MacBook Pro now works with my iPhone.

I agree. MacOS has hundreds of features I don't use. I turn them off, and move on. That said, I'm deeply concerned about anyone who uses Stage Manager lol

 

[ignatius345]

It's not just liquid glass that's feeling cartoonish on the Mac, it's all the stuff that goes along with it. First and foremost for me is the absurdly large rounded corners on every window.

I'll put it this way: I've left my MacBook Air still running on Sequoia, and it feels like "pro" OS and Sonoma on my iMac feels like a dumbed-down "fun" OS.

 

[unsui_grep]

that some people are UX designers? and that a team of UX designers work for apple? and that the rules are things we invent (with purpose, of course). and that we don't all think the same, or see things the same...

i'll say it again: tahoe needs work, there are obvious GUI issues. but LG is the look of this OS, regardless of what ppl think of it.

The point is that people, including Alan Dye IMO, are confusing UI/UX design with graphic design. There is absolutely an aesthetic component to UI design but functionality, accessibility, clarity, and legibility must take precedence. In graphic design there is more leeway for the text in a concert poster or book cover, for example, to be ambiguous or highly stylized to draw visual interest. UI design has a different set of concerns. UI design needs to be clear and responsive at all times. Disorientation for even a fraction of a second leads to bad UX. Imagine the Liquid Glass aesthetic applied to the control panel of a nuclear power plant? Or a heart monitor? Or even airport direction signage? Maybe it's work for window signage for a cosmetic store to draw in customers but not for mission critical workflows. But you're right in that "LG is the look of this OS" and that's the problem. Luckily this OS design is fluid, ahem, and can and probably will change. That's why so many of us are here–to articulate our criticisms and maybe even be heard. Maybe that won't happen, but I'm not really interested in just taking what I'm given and pretending that it's great just because Apple has told me it is. I hope Apple doesn't want that from their users.

 

[Sowelu]

It's surprising just how bad Liquid Glass looks in Dark Mode, which I would assume is a very popular mode used among macOS users. The 'glass' effect just doesn't translate in Dark Mode and it actually makes icons and other elements of the OS look off and unfinished. This is true in both iOS and macOS, but it's more prominent in macOS.

The visual 'glass' illusion that Apple is using to create the Liquid Glass effect, especially with icon borders, present as improperly trimmed transparent gifs from back in the day where the image wasn't fully trimmed and remnants of a background remain. The glass overlay is just not there or barely there, so the eyes do not see a justification for the corner light illusions applied. When icons are reduced in size, both the icon center and edges look awful and jagged. This is just shocking coming from Apple (in a final, major release after many betas).

Within other areas of macOS the Liquid Glass effect is barely noticeable, but the illusion that Apple is using just makes everything look kind of cold, still quite flat, but with faint outlines around everything (in Dark Mode) which is not an improvement over Sequoia. macOS has gotten colder and colder with each release, so I was hoping that a design change would help bring the warmth of the Mac back into macOS. To me this would be matte materials or an improved matte frosted glass with proper layers and subtle shadowing.

IMHO, Apple should have made all glass elements more frosted when Dark Mode is enabled so that the eye can actually see glass, because most of the Liquid Glass effect that they were going for is lost, and just makes the GUI look worse unless you happen to be scrolling over elements that showcase this effect.

Honestly, I was hoping that apple would at least bring the visionOS aesthetic to macOS. It's a well done GUI that would actually work with a desktop OS (and with the same icon aesthetic, just tiled, not round). It's a design with frosted, matte-leaning, clean glass that looks smooth and that you want to touch. It has layers that you can see, and with depth in both icons and windows as well as overlays and menus, finally moving away from a boring flat and cold design, but still super clean and modern. Tahoe very much feels like a 3rd party theme applied to Sequoia and as a macOS user since System 7, (OS X 10.0 aside), Tahoe feels the buggiest out of them all.

Yes, many updates for Tahoe are imminent, but I am not sure if Apple is going to tinker with the overall appearance and aesthetic much, if at all, and updates from here on out will be squashing backend bugs. But, I remain hopeful that improvements to the GUI will come as well, in addition to fixes for truly awful UX decisions that were made to showcase Liquid Glass, or changes that seem to have been made for the sake of change as Tahoe is an OS that truly gets in the way, despite Apple claiming the complete opposite.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

No amount of 'opinion' will change my mind: this is pathetic.

 

[turbineseaplane]

View attachment 2559369

No amount of 'opinion' will change my mind: this is pathetic.

My lord

That is absolutely atrocious

🤮

 

[tenjikuronin]

I strongly suspect a few things after using Tahoe for a few more days:

1) The full translucent look was the first/boldest design idea, but Apple UX got scared and added in some of the other options (some of them obviously rushed like Apple Knowledge Navigator's screenshot, my reduced transparency control center screenshot, etc.) to stave off user backlash.

2) Almost all the design/design testing for Tahoe was done on big, high res external monitors (there was a story about Facebook that was very similar a few years ago).

3) There are so many stupid UI/UX bugs and knowing Apple it'll take another two point releases to get them fixed or sanded away.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I have large high-res displays and it looks stupid there, too. No amount of resolution will compensate for white text on light grey background or text "sliding" into search bars from underneath, making the search bar an unreadable pixel chaos.

 

[tenjikuronin]

I have large high-res displays and it looks stupid there, too. No amount of resolution will compensate for white text on light grey background or text "sliding" into search bars from underneath, making the search bar an unreadable pixel chaos.

Sure, I'm not saying it doesn't, but it does seem to work better (not that that's still "good") on a bigger monitor - I think the ideal was "getting out of your way" and it can do that better on a big monitor.

 

[thebart]

It bothers me an unreasonable amount that the apple logo, app name, and menu text aren't vertically aligned, compared to Catalina. I'm not even OCD and can't even pass the DMV vision test.

 

[tenjikuronin]

It bothers me an unreasonable amount that the apple logo, app name, and menu text aren't vertically aligned, compared to Catalina. I'm not even OCD and can't even pass the DMV vision test.

Painfully sloppy.

 

[Sniper08]

Honestly, I was hoping that apple would at least bring the visionOS aesthetic to macOS. It's a well done GUI that would actually work with a desktop OS (and with the same icon aesthetic, just tiled, not round). It's a design with frosted, matte-leaning, clean glass that looks smooth and that you want to touch. It has layers that you can see, and with depth in both icons and windows as well as overlays and menus, finally moving away from a boring flat and cold design, but still super clean and modern. Tahoe very much feels like a 3rd party theme applied to Sequoia and as a macOS user since System 7, (OS X 10.0 aside), Tahoe feels the buggiest out of them all.

So I'm curious about the whole visionOS UI being the 'birthplace' for the new UI. I've never used the device so I'm reliant on screenshots and videos; it seems like it's built around reacting to real-life elements and user actions like icons raising from the background, glass reflecting real world lighting, or shadows being cast on real world objects below the window. It honestly seems so damn cool.

Looking at the visionOS 26 UI overview, I'm kind of surprised they didn't let the wallpaper act like 'the real world' and have it appear through the various elements of the UI, like Safari for example. There's also some things new in visionOS like a paper material and proximity based widgets. I'm surprised and honestly kind of confused as to why MacOS is closer to iOS than visionOS since visionOS has a 'pointer' in the form of eye tracking that could easily be the mouse on MacOS. I find it hard to believe that I can mentally map out applying visionOS UI and interactive elements to MacOS based on a cursory glance but that the team picked the worst parts of the UI to emulate (dem corners).

As a complete side note, what happens if you use visionOS over a flat white background? I'm imagining a projector wall or something like that.