6 ms·
IMO a big problem with Liquid Glass is that you're trying to recreate an effect that's highly reliant on the sense of depth we get from binocular vision in a 2D
by aylmao 1y ago
IMO a big problem with Liquid Glass is that you're trying to recreate an effect that's highly reliant on the sense of depth we get from binocular vision in a 2D screen.
When looking at glass in real life, your left eye and your right eye see slightly different refraction patterns since they're looking at the surface from slightly different angles. It might be minimal, but light refraction patterns can change a lot when looked at from slightly different distances. This is depth information our brains automatically interpret, and it makes easy to tell what is "the glass" vs what is "on the glass".
On a 2D screen both eyes see the same refraction pattern— your eyes are receiving no depth information. It's just up to color contrast and semantics to figure out what's part of the glass vs laid on top of it, so things that might look legible or easy to tell apart on physical glass will look messy on the screen.
- wpm 1y agoThe other problem is that the effect is so subtle everywhere until it gets in your way. Even on a system with actual binocular screens, the Liquid Glass effect is barely noticeable and has been since visionOS 1.0. It's like a horrible compromise between the indulgences of early 10.2-era Aqua and the worst flat boring low contrast bullshit "mimimmumunlism" crap from iOS 7-18 and macOS from Big Sur onwards.
- jonhohle 1y agoI would gladly take the indulgences of the 10.2 era where clickable things looked like clickable things instead of hobs and gobs of indistinguishable text. What’s misunderstood about aqua was how most of the visual flair was for usability. Things looked like what they did. Windows XP famously ripped off how MS thought they looked without considering how they worked.
- wpm 1y agoTotally agree. I have 10.2 on a G4 Cube on my workbench and it's just so wonderful to boot it up. Especially on the Studio Display CRT at 1600x1200@75. Just gorgeous, friendly, enticing, with just a few rough spots where they maybe overcooked some transparency or flair.
- dav43 1y agoThe big problem is that it’s shit and terrible UX. We should stop complicating feedback :)
- mouse_ 1y agoI'd love to see 3DS-style lenticular 3D display with the power of modern Apple hardware + FaceID hardware eye tracking. I bet they'd be able to do it seamlessly.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 10729287 1y agoIt was very tricky to get the effect on the 3DS but already way better on the New 3DS, so i can definitely think it would work flawlessly on such a powerful device as iPhone.
- whiteboardr 1y agoIn addition to this, glass also reflects light from around you, thus there is not the slightest chance of realistically recreating a glass effect on any device without having some sort of ambient vision which is incorporated into a real time rendering. This is wrong on so many levels and I sincerely hope there will be an option for not just choosing less transparency but an entire UI-skin that is mature, clean and above all: legible.
- StopDisinfo910 1y agoHonestly, the effect I don’t really mind. I don’t really get it in the way I understood the idea behind skeuomorphism or the initial material design but then again I’m not sure I really got the grand concept behind the previous flat interface either. What I do mind is some of the puzzling UX choice they made like the new Safari UX on iOS. It’s somehow even less discoverable than before and iOS was already doing pretty poorly. I was planning to part way with Apple products for separate reasons but that surely doesn’t make me regret the decision.
- create-username 1y agoso maybe the future folding iphone with double screen will mimic binocular vision
- whycome 1y agoWe already have eye tracking in phone. Add a lenticular screen.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y agoHave you ever used a lenticular screen? They have extremely bad ergonomics.
- mock-possum 1y agoEw no
- potato-peeler 1y ago> When looking at glass in real life, your left eye and your right eye see slightly different refraction patterns since they're looking at the surface from slightly different angles But if you close one eye, you can still make out the depth. Brain is still able to tell what is glass, what is on top of glass or below it.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y agoOnly across time via parallax motion and depth refocusing, neither of which are available on the screen. And both of those signals are extremely secondary to binocular sight. There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Their point stands. (Though Apple could technically do a parallax effect by face tracking if they wanted)
- freehorse 1y ago> There's a reason that people with strabismus lose depth perception. Still we don't stumble onto things nor do we fail recognise what is on a glass vs inside. Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. And people with binocular vision also fall for depth illusions just fine, too. The brain does a lot of predictive processing. It would be too inefficient to be constantly relying on such details for basic tasks.
- rkomorn 1y ago> Even if we do not have binocular depth perception, we actually perceive depth irl just fine. I don't think it's everyone of us because I struggle somewhat with pouring things into small openings (eg refilling a small bottle from a bigger one) and most ball games (tennis, table tennis) are difficult. I don't think it makes depth perception a problem, but I think it's unarguable mine isn't as good as the people I know with binocular vision.
- freehorse 1y agoI don't know about your experience or situation, but a confound is that usually people with strabismus have bad eyesight in other aspects in general too. Usually, developing strabismus is the result of other issues with eyesight. The obvious confound is basically having only one good eye to use at a time, and thus also less neural pathways developed and utilised than those who use 2 eyes. This could make visual perception tasks like tracking a fast moving ball harder regardless of the actual role of depth perception in it. There could be tasks where reliance on perceptual cues for depth perception is less effective, but I wouldn't think a moving ball is that kind of task.