Design Should Serve, Not Seduce

Emre Ay
Sep 29
2 min read

Apple’s Liquid Glass UI is beautiful. But is it usable? A critical look at when elegance gets in the way.

All that is gold does not glitter. The first line of a poem written by Bilbo Baggins about Aragorn

At first glance, Apple’s Liquid Glass feels like a love letter to elegance: translucent layers, smooth blur effects, and that signature Apple polish we’ve come to expect. But look again. Something’s off. Behind the shimmer, usability quietly slips through the cracks.

This isn’t a hit piece. I respect the intent. It looks beautiful. But I can’t help thinking: was this meant to be a UI concept, or a teaser for something bigger?

The Illusion of Depth, The Loss of Clarity

Glassmorphism as a design trend isn’t new. I used it in a few projects around 2015–2016.

The common reaction?

“I can’t read the content”, “This is confusing”, and my personal favorite, a developer who dramatically protested, “Are you trying to blind me, bro?”

After rounds of adjustments to preserve the aesthetic while maintaining accessibility, I ultimately stripped most of the visual flair. What was left didn’t feel like glass anymore.

When taken to the extreme, like in Apple’s latest UI iterations, it stops feeling like depth and starts feeling like distraction.

Style Over Substance?

The visual effect itself isn’t the issue. When used sparingly, especially in transitions or subtle hover states, it adds sophistication.

But when the entire interface becomes glassy, legibility takes a hit. For users with visual impairments, older screens, or even bright ambient light, it becomes a struggle.

This isn’t just a visual decision. It is an experience tax.

A Shift Toward Wearables?

Which makes me wonder: is this really a UI trend, or a stepping stone toward something else?

Liquid Glass feels oddly suited to goggle-style wearables, where lightness, layering, and depth matter more than dense interfaces.

Is Apple testing visual language for Vision Pro and beyond? Are we watching the early UI grammar of post-phone experiences take shape?

Design Should Serve, Not Seduce

We’ve been here before. Skeuomorphism. Flat design. Neumorphism. Each time, we chase a look until it trips over its own shadows.

Liquid Glass feels like another case where aesthetics got ahead of experience.

I’m all for visual delight. But not at the cost of clarity. Not when users strain to read. Not when we trade legibility for elegance.

Design doesn’t have to choose between beauty and function. But if we must prioritize one, I will always bet on function.

So... Design Should Serve, not seduce.