When Windows XP was first released, one of the most requested things were to turn the new skin/theme off and make it look like Windows 98. Similar with all later versions of Windows. I don't like Liquid that much, but I wonder how much of this is actually just getting used to the old stuff.
This feels more like Windows Vista when everybody wanted to switch it off but ultimately switched back to Windows XP until Windows 7 was launched. The liquid glass confuses a lot of folks and it's good when done minimally and not all over the OS.
I think the difference with earlier UI redesigns is that the supposed benefit of liquid glass is the whole opacity thing, where several things are laid on top of each other while trying to show what's underneath. That just creates a much more messy interface, making it harder to see what's going on since they've dropped UI-classics like using contrast to make text readable. That's also why the setting to tune down liquid glass is found in accessibility and not, say, display preferences.
I'm a bit too old to have been privvy to any Win XP design backlash, but I think the more apt comparison is with Windows Vista, where transparency was also a major part of the design philosophy (usability be damned). We have pretty good ideas about what makes a good UI/UX and none of those ideas involve using transparency to make readability worse while also not really making what's under the half-transparent element visible or readable.
1. There's actual value in getting used to things. Part of the reason older people can't use computers well and get scammed is because trendy software companies constantly reshuffle the same stuff and they can't keep up.
2. A lot of UI progression is objectively worse, and I do mean objectively. Less legibility, more clicks to do the same actions, etc. We just get used to back software.
iOS 26 is bad software. We might get used to it being bad one day. It's still bad.
Similarly, Windows 8 was bad software. We actually undid that one.
We always get used to what you categorize as "bad" - it's just different. UX / UI people are not clueless, yes, they do some things because they are shiny and cool, but they constantly collect metrics and improve. People moaned all the same when iOS moved on from initial Skeuomorphic roots - now we can't even look at these screenshots without cringing.
Metrics are worse than useless because they don't tell you WHY something is the way it is.
For example, many websites optimize for engagment and in the processes make their website WORSE. Because people have high engagement with shitty things. Thats why humans can't look away from a car wreck.
UX designers are basically creating car wrecks so they can say "look at how many people are looking at us!"
>Similarly, Windows 8 was bad software. We actually undid that one.
Windows 8 was bad software for desktop and laptop computers. I will say though that it was great for hybrid tablet computers and they should have kept that interface for them. Using a Surface running Windows 8 is much nicer as a tablet than what Microsoft has done since. I have no idea why they thought a tablet interface was a good idea for desktops though.
> 1. There's actual value in getting used to things. Part of the reason older people can't use computers well and get scammed is because trendy software companies constantly reshuffle the same stuff and they can't keep up.
The first rule of UI design is don't change things. The second rule is to make it easy to revert exactly to the prior layout. For webpages and apps, it's not hard. Don't change things. Do not change things. Do. Not. Change. Things. But UI designers are too stupid to grasp the simple rules.
Every little change to Facebook was met with huge protests back in the day too (before they learned to do them gradually and also before they trashed it).
