This is where the “Liquid Glass is new Aqua” argument falls flat for me: I feel that some people making a connection between liquid and aqua and assuming that that the former must be clever simply because the (well regarded) latter also had liquid elements.
The truth is, Aqua had a much stronger sense of purpose, functionality and, it could be argued taste. Aqua worked because the ‘reflective’ elements were placed
on top of a flatter material, thus creating a precise contrast of buttons and window elements. Simply put, the intent and purpose was clear.
View attachment 2582437
Even when Apple incorporated brushed metal - which admittedly has both admirers and lesser so - the point was to compliment materials of the hardware with beautifully rendered gradients whilst also creating distinction. The ‘liquid’ traffic light symbols, for instance, work visually because they’re contrasted by a material that is polar opposite. It feels familiar but also adds a sense of strength/confidence and is instantly recognisable. The buttons have depth over the area.
View attachment 2582440
Each button had its own clear identity based on the style of action and intent, whilst maintaining depth via only subtle 3D effects, just enough to lift the controls from the surface.
I don’t think it can be argued that Liquid Glass has an interface that is more condusive to usability than Aqua, it simply has no reason to exist other than to please a certain type of person in the form of novelty factor.
