Live data from Hacker News

Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

nngroup.com

161–170 of 538 posts

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#162
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the standard iPhone 13 (not mini) and the battery longevity is probably the best of any phone I've ever owned. At over 3.5 years old it still reports 89% battery health and lasts much longer than I need. Previous iPhones I owned were all pretty much on their last legs by that age. I haven't upgraded it to iOS 26 / Liquid Glass, though, and given what I'm seeing/hearing, I don't plan to.

The question was how much the update to iOS 26 affected battery life

On the iPhone 13 Mini

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#163
post #31

This update is one of the rare cases where I really dislike the new version. I’m usually happy with Apple updates, even ones the commentators dislike. This time I’m sorta agreeing with them: I don’t like the new iOS. Same with the Mac and iPad: other than being glitchy, I just don’t like the changes. It feels like my screen real estate isn’t as efficiently used, UI elements feel jumbled and the transparency makes thi…

[deleted]

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#164

I don't have accessibility issues, but even so I've been a fan of these settings for a few iOS versions now: Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Reduce Transparency Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Increase Contrast Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Differentiate Without Colour Settings > Accessibility > Motion > Reduce Motion Settings > Accessibility > Motion > Prefer Cros…

The trouble with Reduce Transparency on iOS 26 is that it also reduces contrast (irrespective of Increase Contrast).

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#165
post #63

Seems like I'm against the trend here in HN, but I personally like it more the more I use it. (Admittedly I don't have any accessibility issues which may come up for others) Also, I appreciate the UX improvements (as opposed to the pretty glass effect), such as the much improved menu system and the generally (IMO) improved changes in layout in Calendar, Mail, Safari, etc. That said I do find it a bit more annoying to…

If you head into Safari's settings you can reinstate the old bottom bar (or the even older top and bottom bars)

There’s also a hell of a lot of gestures that I’ve just learned of: https://www.cnet.com/tech/i-finally-got-used-to-the-new-ios-...

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#167

Seems like I'm against the trend here in HN, but I personally like it more the more I use it. (Admittedly I don't have any accessibility issues which may come up for others) Also, I appreciate the UX improvements (as opposed to the pretty glass effect), such as the much improved menu system and the generally (IMO) improved changes in layout in Calendar, Mail, Safari, etc. That said I do find it a bit more annoying to…

I'm a fan of the eye-candy. Truly feels like a glimpse of the future is terms of aesthetics. I just wish they hadn't thrown UX principles away.

Re: Liquid Glass Is Cracked, and Usability Suffers in iOS 26

#168
TLDR not all perspectives have optimal legibility, but if it's easy to change perspective to achieve optimal legibility, then it might be a good tradeoff if you get other value in return. And phones have gotten bigger, and this is a reset of default device expectation.

--

As an app developer I (generally) like liquid glass, it injects some much needed fun and freshness into our devices. It's still rough around the edges and some of these points are very valid, especially around not overdoing it to show off and some text-on-text issues.

However I do think some of the issues raised are based on a different goals around legibility.

I think NNgroup wants all interfaces to be optimally legible at any given moment. I think Apple wants all interfaces to have access to legibility at any given moment, typically by moving the screen a bit.

These are legitimate differences of opinion. A physical metaphor might be that you have a paper with a glass paperweight atop it. If one were to judge a photo of your perspective looking at it as though it were a UI, they might comment that the paper is hard to read in places because of the paperweight.

But in reality, it takes half a second to move that paperweight aside to read the paper, and the paperweight serves another valuable purpose keeping the paper from moving. This is akin to other purposes UI elements serve. It's a balance and a tradeoff.

Just like Steve Jobs pointed out to Round Rects Are Everywhere! [0], the physical world is full of content that obscures other content. What do we do? We turn our head a bit, or move a thing aside. We don't expect the physical world to have optimal legibility at all possible perspectives. While we can (and should) do better in the digital realm, there is a spectrum and the optimal point may not be where NNgroup wants it, especially as the capability of mobile devices reaches and exceeds that of the physical realm.

To address another point this article makes about touch targets:

Prior iOS versions made decisions about spacing between icons that were based on smaller devices (4.7-5.5", or 9.5-13 sq in). iPhones are larger these days (6.1-6.9", or 14-18 sq in), so the physical area of a touch target isn't actually that different, if at all. A big UI refresh is the time to update these kinds of assumptions.

[0] https://www.folklore.org/Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.html

Post reply on HN