Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 306 posts

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#31

Post by seanhunter »

cyode wrote: post #5

> ...floating forms that nest neatly in the rounded curves of modern devices. These clearly defined shapes feel easy to tap and are designed to relate to the natural geometry of our fingers... This reminds me for some reason of my preferred answer to the Microsoft interview question "Why are manholes round?" A: Because the average cross-section of a human being is roughly circular.

Most manhole covers aren’t round. If you actually go out and look at them, the vast majority of manhole covers are rectangular.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#32

Post by _cenw »

osigurdson wrote: post #24

I thought the glass effect on Windows Vista was pretty good 15-20 years ago but eventually disappeared. I'm sure this will be much better since Apple are far better than anyone else at design. Of course, I use Linux most of the time and crack open my MacBook once a week at most so I won't benefit from it much.

Linux got plenty of good glass effects. Kvantum for instance.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#33

Post by nomel »

adastra22 wrote: post #26
derefr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of "design the manhole cover first", the reason is that manhole covers aren't just round — they're (very subtle) domes. A dome is: 1. the best shape for taking stress from very heavy trucks putting all their weight on them without the manhole itself gradually bowing, and 2. is best at transferring that stress equally into the manhole wall (cast concrete cylinder) itself. (A square manhole + manho…

As someone with a mechanical engineering background, all these clever answers to the question (e.g. "manhole covers are round to prevent the cover falling in") are strange. Covers are round because the hole is round, and the hole is round because a cylindrical shape is sturdy and prevents collapse. That's it.

That's not "it". A square cover would not be feasible, without a tether system to fish them out of the literal shit, after they fall in from a few inch misalignment.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#34

Post by seanhunter »

dylan604 wrote: post #8
cyode wrote: post #5

> ...floating forms that nest neatly in the rounded curves of modern devices. These clearly defined shapes feel easy to tap and are designed to relate to the natural geometry of our fingers... This reminds me for some reason of my preferred answer to the Microsoft interview question "Why are manholes round?" A: Because the average cross-section of a human being is roughly circular.

Is that the real reason? I had always heard that a round hole prevents the cover from being able to fall back in the hole

If that was the reason a Reuleaux triangle would have the same property while using (I think) less material for a given size of shaft (as long as the shaft can be triangular). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#35

Post by adastra22 »

nomel wrote: post #33
adastra22 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with a mechanical engineering background, all these clever answers to the question (e.g. "manhole covers are round to prevent the cover falling in") are strange. Covers are round because the hole is round, and the hole is round because a cylindrical shape is sturdy and prevents collapse. That's it.

That's not "it". A square cover would not be feasible, without a tether system to fish them out of the literal shit, after they fall in from a few inch misalignment.

Why would you put a square cover on a round hole?

The hole came first. They dig a hole, then they have a need to put a cover on it. Making a circular cover to fit over a circular hole is if anything cheaper and easier than making a square cover over an inscribed circular hole, at least when working with metal.

The hole drove the design of the cover, not the other way around.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#36

Post by mvkel »

I think I know what happened.

The A-squad design team left Apple 15 years ago.

The B-squad left 5 years ago.

What remains is a sea of Gen Z designers who weren't yet alive when the foggy glass of Windows Vista seemed like a good idea.

Meanwhile, the talent wars are raging, with every AI company offering 7-figure salaries to the best of Apple's prodigies.

Apple is now the old guard. They're no longer cool, and as a public company, cost controls are too stringent; they can't pay as much. What is Apple to do?

They can give the designers a sense of ownership. It's not a question of how (un)qualified the team is; it's a retention play.

Is the design good? The A and B squads would say no. But this is the best Apple can do these days to keep critical talent engaged.

They'll burn a cycle re-learning fundamental lessons in accessibility, retain talent, and cling to the hope that next year they'll have a midwit Siri than can book a flight with a decent looking UI.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#37

Post by ajam1507 »

UIs should be function first. That doesn't mean it can't be beautiful, but usability (and readability) should be the focus, with design being a way to turn a useful one into a beautiful one. It seems like they have started at the wrong end, trying to make their design language functional.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#38

Post by serial_dev »

seydor wrote: post #18

We have 'instinctive visual cues' for depth and light coming from above, hence why button gradients are so immediately effective,because our visual system recognizes it in milliseconds. we don't have "instictive visual cues" for refraction and lensing , that's why we are confused about underwater distances . That's why magnifying glasses make us dizzy. I just can't believe this is coming from apple.

That’s an interesting point, never thought about it.

These complicated lenses distorting light from all directions look fancy in a designer portfolio, having them almost everywhere… I’m not sure how it will work out.

In contrast, the original material design was quite intuitive, iirc they based their design on paper sheets, much simpler, and much more common in our day to day life.

I still have some hope it will work out great, if Apple can take the accessibility visibility issues seriously, and developers using it in moderation, it can be great.

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#39

Post by [deleted] »

ajam1507 wrote: post #37

UIs should be function first. That doesn't mean it can't be beautiful, but usability (and readability) should be the focus, with design being a way to turn a useful one into a beautiful one. It seems like they have started at the wrong end, trying to make their design language functional.

[deleted]

Re: Liquid Glass – WWDC25 [video]

#40

Post by seydor »

nomel wrote: post #25
seydor wrote: post #18

We have 'instinctive visual cues' for depth and light coming from above, hence why button gradients are so immediately effective,because our visual system recognizes it in milliseconds. we don't have "instictive visual cues" for refraction and lensing , that's why we are confused about underwater distances . That's why magnifying glasses make us dizzy. I just can't believe this is coming from apple.

How is this wrong? Our visual system is optimized, rather extremely, for understanding 3d scenes under the simple perspective model that our eyes are based on: x' = (x * f) / z Outside of that 99.999% experience norm, that are brains are so used to, is disconnect and discomfort. If you've ever put on a new pair of glasses, with a different prescription, you'll understand exactly what he's talking about: depth offset…

the fact that it's surprising does not make it a visual cue. A cue to what? I am not aware of any psychophysics study that says we have perception of droplets or lens transformations (in contrast to shadows , gradients etc that are well studied). There also doesn't seem to be an evolutionary reason for it because the natural world does not have lenses and glass. And UIs are usually based on intuitive features.
Post reply on HN