Liquid Chaos: How Apple’s New Design Language Reflects an Identity Crisis

The release of iOS 26 marks a turning point in Apple’s history. With this latest OS update featuring the new “Liquid Glass” design language, it becomes apparent that Apple is trying very hard to keep up with the competition while adding layers of visual complexity that ultimately sacrifice the user experience for aesthetic appeal.

A Cluttered Product Line Without Clear Vision

Right now, it’s becoming clear that Apple desperately needs direction in overall product design—both physical and interface-level. The issue is that there are too many devices without a clear strategy for why all these devices are needed. We have the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and now the iPhone Air—a $999 ultra-thin device that paradoxically costs more than the standard iPhone 17 while offering fewer features. The whole product line feels cluttered, with each model serving overlapping use cases rather than distinct user needs.

With Jony Ive having left the company in 2019 and no direct design leadership replacing that role — leaving it more to engineers than a design director reporting to Cook — it’s difficult to maintain a consistent design language. Five years later, iOS 26 reveals the consequences of this leadership vacuum.

Form Over Function: The Liquid Glass Problem

The new Liquid Glass design has been widely criticized for prioritizing aesthetics over usability. Testing has revealed contrast ratios as low as 1.5:1 in places, when accessibility standards require 4.5:1. Critics compare it to Windows Aero — beautiful but impractical, creating “a glossy illusion at the cost of usability.” The extreme translucency and blur effects result in what users describe as trying to read text “through a steamy bathroom mirror.”

Even more concerning are the design inconsistencies throughout the system. Users report that “some things are flat while some are glass,” with highlights on UI elements being inconsistent across the interface. The Liquid Glass effect even creates optical illusions that make app icons appear crooked to some users. This isn’t just poor execution — it’s evidence of a design philosophy that has lost its way.

Accessibility as an Afterthought

When it comes to accessibility, two distinct user groups are emerging in tech. One group remains committed to ensuring every design is accessible, inclusive, and efficient. The other tends to neglect accessibility, favoring heavy animations and visual effects that slow things down and make interfaces more of a playground than a functional tool. It’s disappointing to see Apple leaning toward the latter.

The semi-transparent layers, animations, and elements that lack contrast are now the default in iOS 26. This means users who need more support must first navigate deep into settings—specifically Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size—to find options like “Reduce Transparency” and “Increase Contrast” just to achieve basic legibility. As frustrated users note: “Users shouldn’t need to enable a whole bunch of accessibility settings to get basic legibility and clarity.”

Even with these accessibility settings enabled, the problems persist. Users report that “reducing translucency and increasing contrast only helps a little bit” and describe the release as “surprisingly sloppy” that “needs a ton of polishing.” Accessibility advocates have called out the design for ignoring legibility guidelines, with notifications, banners, and system tabs often blending into backgrounds, making text “incredibly hard to read.”

Adding Features Without Fixing Fundamentals

While Apple touts new features like Live Translation and enhanced Apple Intelligence integration as accessibility wins, these are add-ons that don’t address the fundamental usability issues. They add more complexity without improving the status quo. It’s a pattern that reveals a troubling philosophy: “form first, function... eventually.”

Designers are now being advised to “proceed with caution” regarding the new design language. The iOS 26 UI Kit comes with warnings about testing for usability before release, and developers struggle to match the system UI without accidentally making their interfaces unreadable. This isn’t innovation — it’s regression.

The Post-Ive Reality

In other words, you’re not really shipping an accessible design when users have to dig deep into settings just to find basic accessibility options. The fact that Apple’s own keynote showcased demo screens with “overlapping colors and blurred panels where text nearly disappeared” speaks volumes about the current state of design leadership.

iOS 26 represents more than just a controversial visual update — it’s evidence of a company that has lost sight of what made its designs revolutionary. Under Ive’s leadership, despite his flaws, there was a coherent vision where form and function were meant to work in harmony. Now, five years after his departure, we’re left with a design language that forces users to actively work against the default interface to achieve basic usability.

The Liquid Glass design may be visually ambitious, but as one critic aptly put it: “Can a design be truly beautiful if it leaves people out?” For a company that once prided itself on making technology accessible to everyone, iOS 26’s design-first, accessibility-later approach marks a troubling departure from its core values.

---

This article reflects the state of iOS 26 as of September 2025. Apple has historically refined its visual systems post-launch, and future updates may address some of these concerns.