The Glass Cage of Modern UI

This report undertakes a critical examination of the latest advancements in user interface (UI) design from three industry leaders: Apple's Liquid Glass (iOS 26), Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, and Microsoft's Fluent Design. The central argument posits that while these systems introduce visually striking aesthetics, particularly through the mimicry of physical materials like glass, they collectively fall short of achieving true digital physicality. This limitation arises from a fundamental misinterpretation of "physicality," reducing it to superficial visual metaphors rather than embracing inherent interactive properties and cognitive models.

A primary finding indicates that the current emphasis on "glass-mimicking" UIs, while aiming for visual "delight" and "expressiveness," often inadvertently introduces cognitive friction, accessibility challenges, and inconsistencies. This trend, while visually appealing, appears to represent a cyclical aesthetic shift rather than a fundamental advancement in cognitive usability, echoing past design paradigms such as Windows Vista's Aero. [1] The collective failure to grasp true digital physicality stems from a reduction of "physicality" to mere visual metaphors, overlooking the deeper interactive properties and cognitive alignment crucial for seamless user experience. This approach can lead to a "digital uncanny valley," where the attempt to perfectly simulate physical glass in a two-dimensional interface results in cognitive dissonance rather than intuitive interaction. [3]

The report proposes that the genuine future of UI design lies not in decorative mimicry, but in leveraging principles of light, material, and motion to create intuitive, non-verbal affordances. This approach aims to reduce cognitive load by emulating the seamless cognitive flow characteristic of real-world interactions. Such a truly "physical" UI could offer solutions to persistent legacy problems, fostering environments where digital elements behave with the predictable, intuitive properties of the physical world, thereby minimizing mental effort and enhancing user engagement.

1\. Introduction: The Illusion of Glass and the Pursuit of Digital Physicality

1.1. Defining "Digital Physicality" and "Seamless Cognitive Flow" in UI

The concept of "digital physicality" in user interface design transcends mere visual representation of real-world objects. It embodies the principle that digital interfaces should not only appear to have physical properties but, more critically, should behave in ways that are intuitively consistent with our understanding of the physical world. This involves fostering a sense of direct manipulation, where interactions feel natural and predictable, akin to handling tangible objects. Central to this paradigm is the notion of "seamless cognitive flow," a state where user interaction demands minimal mental effort, allowing tasks to be completed fluidly and without conscious deliberation. [6]

Cognitive load theory provides a crucial framework for understanding this objective. It differentiates between intrinsic load (the inherent difficulty of a task), extraneous load (mental effort imposed by poor design), and germane load (constructive effort leading to learning). True digital physicality primarily aims to minimize extraneous cognitive load by ensuring interfaces are intuitive, predictable, and responsive in a manner that aligns with human expectations derived from physical experiences. [6] When users can anticipate system behavior without conscious thought, and when digital elements respond with a familiar physical logic (e.g., momentum, friction, elasticity), cognitive friction is significantly reduced, paving the way for a truly seamless interaction.

1.2. The Evolution of UI Design: From Skeuomorphism to Flat, and the Current "Glass" Trend

The trajectory of user interface design has been marked by a cyclical evolution of aesthetic and functional paradigms. Early digital interfaces often embraced skeuomorphism, meticulously mimicking real-world objects to leverage users' existing knowledge and facilitate familiarity. Examples include the original iPhone's calendar app, designed to resemble a physical desk calendar, or notes apps with lined paper textures. [11] This approach aimed to reduce the learning curve for new digital tools by grounding them in tangible metaphors.

However, the proliferation of digital devices and the increasing sophistication of users led to a shift towards flat design, exemplified by Apple's iOS 7 in 2013. [11] This movement prioritized clarity, simplicity, and efficiency by stripping away superfluous textures and three-dimensional effects, focusing instead on typography, color, and iconography. The goal was to create interfaces that were cleaner, faster, and less visually cluttered, optimizing for digital-native interactions rather than physical emulation.

The contemporary landscape sees a resurgence of depth and materiality, with leading design systems incorporating elements inspired by glass-like aesthetics. Apple's Liquid Glass, Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, and Microsoft's Fluent Design all integrate translucency, subtle animations, and dynamic materials to create a sense of visual depth and responsiveness. [1] This trend seeks to add richness and visual interest, often drawing inspiration from the immersive qualities of augmented and virtual reality environments, as seen with Apple's VisionOS influencing Liquid Glass. [11]

1.3. Thesis: Why Mimicking Glass Falls Short of True Physicality

The central argument of this report is that the current wave of "glass-mimicking" UIs, while visually appealing and technologically advanced, often constructs a "glass cage" rather than achieving genuine digital physicality. This aesthetic, characterized by pervasive translucency, subtle blur, and simulated refraction, can paradoxically increase cognitive load and impede usability by compromising legibility and predictability. [3]

The emphasis on visual "delight" and "expressiveness" through Liquid Glass, for instance, appears to have inadvertently created a conflict with fundamental accessibility and legibility principles. This suggests a prioritization of aesthetic novelty over practical usability. Apple states Liquid Glass aims to be "more expressive and delightful". [3] However, numerous reports from users highlight significant criticism regarding poor readability, low contrast, and an "accessibility nightmare" due to insufficient background blur and translucent elements over busy backgrounds. [3] This direct contradiction indicates that the implementation of the aesthetic goal has, in some instances, undermined established usability best practices, particularly regarding contrast ratios, echoing past form-versus-function dilemmas.

Furthermore, this "Liquid Glass" design, while leveraging advanced hardware capabilities for visual fidelity, may be creating a new form of "digital uncanny valley." The increased power of Apple Silicon enables computationally expensive simulations of "realistic glass refraction, with bending light, constantly shifting edge highlights, and physically accurate distortion". [11] Yet, user feedback describes the result as a "smeary visual mess," a "cheap Android theme," or "disjointed". [3] This suggests that instead of feeling truly physical, the hyper-realistic but ultimately simulated glass effect might be just enough off to feel unnatural or distracting. The focus on mimicking rather than abstracting or affording physical properties through behavior is a critical missed opportunity. True digital physicality is not about looking like glass; it is about behaving like a physical object in a way that aligns with human intuition and reduces mental friction. [6]

2\. Comparative Critique of Contemporary UI Design Systems

2.1. Apple's Liquid Glass (iOS 26): Aesthetic Immersion vs. Usability

Apple's Liquid Glass represents a significant visual overhaul across its unified operating systems, including iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26, watchOS 26, tvOS 26, and visionOS 26. [1] This design language, the most substantial visual change since iOS 7, incorporates translucent materials, subtle animations, and a heightened sense of depth and clarity, dynamically reflecting and refracting its surroundings. [1] Drawing inspiration from VisionOS, Liquid Glass aims for a "clear look" that complements existing light and dark modes, with app icons and system elements like the Dock and Lock Screen adopting multiple glass layers. [11] Controls are conceptualized as a distinct functional layer, designed to morph dynamically as users require more options or navigate within an application. [22] Similarly, navigation elements such as tab bars are engineered to shrink during scrolling, maintaining focus on content, and then fluidly expand when interaction resumes. [11]

Despite its ambitious aesthetic goals, Liquid Glass has faced considerable critique, particularly concerning its impact on usability and accessibility. A prevalent concern revolves around poor readability, especially in information-dense areas such as the Control Center and Lock Screen. This issue is attributed to insufficient background blur and the translucent nature of elements placed over busy or light backgrounds. [3] Users have reported significant difficulty in discerning text, particularly when light wallpapers are combined with white fonts, leading to what some describe as an "accessibility nightmare". [17] Observations suggest that the UI achieves optimal legibility predominantly in "Clear Dark" mode, with the "Clear Light" mode suffering notably from the pervasive translucency effects. [3] This challenge echoes past design missteps, such as the readability issues encountered with iOS 7's introduction of thin typefaces. [17]

Beyond visual clarity, the computational demands of Liquid Glass raise performance implications. Simulating realistic glass refraction, which involves complex calculations for bending light and dynamically shifting highlights, is a computationally intensive process. This can exert significant strain on graphical processing units (GPUs) and potentially lead to increased battery consumption, particularly on older devices. [4]

User perception further compounds these technical and accessibility concerns. Many users have described Liquid Glass as "busy and obnoxious," "overdesigned bloatware," or merely "change for the sake of change," drawing uncomfortable parallels to the visually heavy, yet often criticized, Windows Vista's Aero interface. [2] This sentiment suggests that the design prioritizes dazzling optics over meaningful innovation and core usability, potentially alienating users who value functional efficiency above aesthetic novelty. [5] The pursuit of visual "delight" and "expressiveness" appears to have inadvertently created a conflict with fundamental accessibility and legibility principles, indicating a prioritization of aesthetic novelty over practical usability. This is a classic form-versus-function dilemma, where the visual form seems to have taken precedence, at least in the initial beta releases. The "Liquid Glass" design, while leveraging advanced hardware capabilities for visual fidelity, may be creating a new form of "digital uncanny valley." The attempt to perfectly mimic physical glass in a two-dimensional interface, despite powerful processing, can lead to cognitive dissonance rather than intuitive physicality. The hyper-realistic but ultimately simulated glass effect might be just enough off to feel unnatural or distracting, hindering seamless cognitive flow by drawing attention to the artifice rather than the content or interaction.

The following table summarizes the key accessibility and performance concerns associated with Apple's Liquid Glass:

2.2. Google's Material Design 3 Expressive: Emotion, Playfulness, and Practicality

Material Design 3 Expressive represents the fourth iteration of Google's comprehensive design system, evolving from Material You's emphasis on personalization. Its core objective is to "inspire emotion" and cultivate "wild and way-too-playful" interfaces through an expanded and dynamic application of color, shape, and animation. [25] Extensive user research, involving over 18,000 participants across 46 studies, indicated a strong user preference for designs rated highly on "emotion-based metrics" such as "energetic," "playful," "friendly," and having a "positive vibe". [25] A notable achievement reported from this research is the elimination of the "usability age gap," with older participants spotting key UI elements as quickly as younger ones. [25] Key features of Material Design 3 Expressive include an expanded shape library offering morphing animations, an increased selection of typography options including variable fonts, and dynamic color palettes that can adapt to user preferences. [25] A new "motion-physics system" is a cornerstone, employing "springs" to create interactions that feel "alive, fluid, and natural," mirroring real-world physics for clear and predictable animations. [23]

Despite its research-backed approach and stated benefits, Material Design 3 Expressive faces scrutiny regarding its practical implementation and potential trade-offs. One concern is the potential for visual clutter and inefficiencies in screen real estate. While the system aims for expressiveness, questions arise as to whether users genuinely requested more animated, attention-grabbing elements. The introduction of enlarged interactive elements, such as a send button that can be spotted up to four times faster, might be perceived as wasteful of screen space by experienced users, potentially making interfaces less scannable for those already familiar with the layout. [25] The emphasis on "bold editorial layouts" may, in some contexts, prioritize visual impact over information density, which could frustrate users who value efficiency. [37]

The philosophy underpinning Material Design 3 Expressive, which leans heavily towards "playfulness" and emotional engagement, might alienate users who prefer subtle, functional interfaces for productivity-oriented tasks rather than entertainment. [37] The "bouncy jiggle physics" [40] and "springy" animations [31], while intended to feel natural, could be perceived as distracting or consume excessive processing power, potentially slowing down interactions for users who prioritize speed. [37]

Furthermore, the implementation strategy and rollout pose challenges to consistency. The gradual deployment across Android's fragmented ecosystem means users may experience mixed interfaces for extended periods, undermining Material Design's original objective of a unified user experience. [38] While dynamic color offers powerful personalization, it can inadvertently create contrast issues or dilute brand identity if not applied with clear intent. [33] Some early beta versions reportedly exhibited low contrast colors and thin fonts [42], and the dynamic color plugin has been noted for not respecting system contrast settings, raising accessibility concerns. [43]

Material Design 3 Expressive attempts to bridge the gap between aesthetic appeal and usability through extensive research. However, its pursuit of "emotion" and "playfulness" risks over-optimizing for novelty and initial engagement at the expense of long-term efficiency for experienced users. While features like enlarged buttons and animation-heavy interactions are beneficial for new user onboarding or initial discovery, they may become "wasteful of screen space" or "visually noisy" for power users. [38] This suggests a potential trade-off where the focus on initial "delight" and "expressiveness" might not scale effectively for daily, efficient use by seasoned users.

Moreover, while Material Design 3 Expressive introduces a "motion-physics system" designed to be "predictable" like real objects [30], the critique of "bouncy jiggle physics" [40] indicates a potential miscalibration. The degree of physical simulation might cross a threshold from intuitive to distracting. If animations are too exaggerated or too frequent, even if physically plausible, they can become a distraction rather than an aid, thereby increasing extraneous cognitive load by drawing attention away from the primary task. The predictability of physics is one aspect, but its intensity and frequency in a UI context are critical considerations for maintaining seamless cognitive flow.

The following table highlights the usability enhancements and associated design trade-offs in Material Design 3 Expressive:

2.3. Microsoft's Fluent Design: Consistency, Materials, and Legacy Challenges

Microsoft's Fluent Design system aims to deliver a modern, refreshed aesthetic across its diverse software ecosystem, striving for consistency, quality, and platform coherence. [44] It is fundamentally structured around five core components: light, depth, motion, material, and scale. [45] Fluent supports a variety of materials, each designed to evoke specific tactile qualities and visual behaviors: solid (opaque, common), Mica (an opaque material subtly tinted by the desktop background for active windows), Acrylic (a semi-transparent material mimicking frosted glass, often used for transient surfaces like popovers), and Smoke (a translucent black material for dimming backgrounds behind modal components). [13] Furthermore, Fluent UI integrates principles of AI-driven user experience, particularly with Copilot, employing a "Fluent AI design language" that emphasizes dynamic prompts and contextual cards to adapt interfaces in real-time. [48]

Despite these articulated principles and advanced material concepts, a pervasive and significant criticism leveled against Fluent Design is its persistent lack of consistency. This inconsistency is evident not only across different Microsoft products but often within single applications, such as the Edge browser. [49] This fragmentation largely stems from the ongoing coexistence of modern Fluent-designed elements with older, legacy UI components. Examples include the stark visual discrepancy between the modern Settings app and the archaic Control Panel, or the continued presence of outdated Win32 elements within a supposedly modern operating system. [52] This "heavy mix" of disparate styles, ranging from Windows 8 and Windows 95 to even Windows 3.11 alongside modern Fluent, leads to visual disunity, fragmented dark mode implementations, and non-uniform context menus, severely impacting the user experience. [54]

Microsoft's commitment to backward compatibility, while a necessary feature for its vast user base and enterprise clients, inadvertently creates a fragmented user experience. Legacy applications often retain their outdated visual styles, clashing starkly with modern Fluent elements. [54] This makes system navigation and overall use challenging, as users are forced to contend with a constantly shifting visual language and inconsistent interaction patterns. This inherent tension significantly impedes progress towards a truly unified and seamless user experience. [54]

Furthermore, there are notable gaps between Fluent Design's aspirational principles and their actual implementation. Despite principles emphasizing light, depth, and motion, the real-world UI often falls short of the polished mockups. Features like "Reveal Highlight," a slick hover effect, were either discontinued or inconsistently applied across the system. [55] Some newer Fluent UIs have also been criticized for lacking a clear visual hierarchy, contributing to a cluttered feel. [58]

Microsoft's Fluent Design, despite articulating comprehensive principles (light, depth, motion, material, scale) and advanced material concepts (Mica, Acrylic), is fundamentally undermined by its inability to enforce consistent application across its vast and legacy-laden software ecosystem. While the design philosophy is robust, the organizational and technical execution across a massive and historically fragmented product portfolio presents the primary barrier to achieving its stated goals of coherence and a truly "physical" feel. The "glass cage" in this context is not merely aesthetic but a systemic one, created by the disparate UI frameworks that coexist within the Windows environment.

The tension between Microsoft's commitment to backward compatibility and its pursuit of a modern, consistent Fluent Design creates a unique cognitive burden for users. This forces them to constantly adapt to shifting visual languages and interaction patterns within the same operating system. For a user, a task might commence in a modern Fluent interface but then necessitate interaction with an archaic Win32 dialog, demanding a mental "context switch." This perpetual adaptation increases extraneous cognitive load and prevents the formation of a stable mental model of the system, directly hindering seamless cognitive flow and contributing to user frustration. [6]

The following table illustrates the disparities between Fluent Design's stated principles and the realities of its implementation concerning consistency:

3\. The Collective Shortcoming: A Superficial Grasp of Physicality

3.1. Synthesis of Common Failures: Prioritizing Visual Mimicry Over Cognitive Alignment

A synthesizing examination of Apple's Liquid Glass, Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, and Microsoft's Fluent Design reveals a common underlying limitation: a pervasive prioritization of visual aesthetics that mimic physical properties, often at the expense of genuine cognitive alignment. While each system approaches this differently, the overarching pattern is one where the look of physicality overshadows its behavioral and cognitive implications.

Apple's Liquid Glass, for instance, struggles with fundamental legibility due to its pervasive transparency, forcing users to exert additional cognitive effort to read content over visually busy backgrounds. [3] The visual appeal of glass-like elements is undeniable, but their application without sufficient consideration for contrast and visual hierarchy leads to a degradation of core usability.

Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, while grounded in extensive user research and aiming for emotional impact, risks introducing visual clutter and efficiency trade-offs for experienced users. Its bold shapes, enlarged elements, and dynamic animations, though intended to be "playful" and "expressive," can become distracting or consume valuable screen real estate, particularly for users focused on productivity rather than aesthetic delight. [38] The system's "motion-physics" may also be miscalibrated, with "bouncy jiggle physics" potentially crossing the line from intuitive to irritating. [40]

Microsoft's Fluent Design, despite articulating comprehensive principles of light, depth, motion, material, and scale, is fundamentally hampered by its inability to enforce consistent application across its vast and legacy-laden software ecosystem. This results in a fragmented user experience where modern Fluent elements clash with outdated UI components, creating a disjointed and cognitively demanding environment for users. [54]

The common thread across all three systems is a design philosophy that, while aiming for "modernity" and "delight," prioritizes visual output (how it looks) over cognitive input (how it's understood and interacted with). This suggests that the primary driver for these updates is visual innovation and market differentiation, rather than a deep, user-centric re-evaluation of how digital interfaces can truly align with human cognitive processes.

3.2. The "Glass Cage" Metaphor: Why Current Approaches Create Cognitive Friction

The "glass cage" metaphor aptly encapsulates how these contemporary UIs, despite their polished visual appeal, can paradoxically trap users in a cycle of increased cognitive effort. Instead of liberating interaction, the pervasive transparency and dynamic effects, when poorly implemented or overused, can act as significant distractions or generate visual noise, thereby increasing extraneous cognitive load. [4]

When UI elements fail to behave predictably or consistently according to an inherent "physical" logic, users are compelled to expend mental energy to decipher interactions. This breaks the seamless cognitive flow, leading to frustration, reduced efficiency, and a diminished sense of direct control. [6] For instance, if a translucent element obscures background content, the user's brain works harder to parse the foreground information. If an animation is too "bouncy" or unpredictable, it draws attention to itself rather than guiding the user's focus to the intended action. The lack of a consistent, underlying "physics engine" for UI elements means that learned behaviors from one part of the system may not apply to another, forcing users to constantly re-evaluate and adapt, a significant source of cognitive friction.

3.3. The Missed Opportunity: Neglecting Inherent Physical and Cognitive Principles

The current focus on superficial mimicry represents a significant missed opportunity to leverage the profound potential of true digital physicality. Rather than merely looking like glass or exhibiting "springy" animations, UIs should behave with the seamless cognitive flow of real-world interaction, where actions have predictable consequences and elements respond intuitively based on principles derived from physics and human perception. [19]

The inherent understanding humans possess of the physical world—concepts like gravity, friction, momentum, and mass—offers a powerful, untapped resource for UI design. When a digital object is "flicked," for example, its deceleration should feel natural, as if friction is slowing it down. When elements collide, their response should be predictable, not arbitrary. [19] This is not about perfect simulation, which can be computationally expensive and visually distracting, but about abstracting and applying these principles to create intuitive, non-verbal "affordances" for action. An affordance, in this context, is a property of an object that suggests how it can be used, ideally without explicit instruction. [60] Current UIs often rely on labels or explicit signifiers, but a truly physical UI would make actions self-evident through the visual and interactive properties of the elements themselves.

By neglecting these deeper physical and cognitive principles, contemporary UI systems remain trapped in a "glass cage" of aesthetics. They prioritize visual polish over fundamental usability, failing to capitalize on the human brain's innate capacity for understanding and interacting with a physically consistent environment.

4\. Designing for True Digital Physicality: Beyond the Glass Cage

The path to true digital physicality in UI design necessitates a paradigm shift from aesthetic mimicry to the deep integration of real-world physics and cognitive principles. This approach aims to create interfaces that are not only visually engaging but also profoundly intuitive, reducing cognitive load and solving long-standing usability challenges.

4.1. Principles of Light and Material for Intuitive Affordances

Light and material in a truly physical UI should serve as more than decorative elements; they must function as intuitive, non-verbal affordances for action. Affordances are the properties of an object that suggest how it can be used, enabling users to understand functionality without explicit instructions. [60]

• Dynamic Lighting and Shadowing: Instead of static drop shadows, light sources within the UI could dynamically react to user input (e.g., cursor proximity, touch location) or environmental factors (e.g., device tilt, ambient light). A button could subtly "lift" or cast a more pronounced shadow as a cursor hovers over it, non-verbally signaling its clickable nature. [63] This dynamic feedback creates a sense of tangibility and responsiveness, akin to how real objects react to changes in light.
• Material Properties for Interaction Cues: Different digital "materials" could be imbued with distinct interactive properties. For example, a "soft" material might suggest a draggable or deformable element, while a "rigid" material might indicate a fixed or unmovable component. The "texture" of a digital surface, though simulated, could provide haptic feedback or visual cues that suggest its interactive behavior, such as a "rough" texture indicating a scrollable area with friction, or a "smooth" texture for fluid, frictionless movement.
• Transparency and Opacity with Purpose: While current "glass" UIs often misuse transparency, it can be a powerful affordance when applied judiciously. Transparency could indicate layers of information or interactive depth, but only when legibility is maintained through sufficient contrast and blur. [3] For instance, a background element might become slightly more opaque when a foreground element is being actively manipulated, drawing focus to the primary interaction. The "clear glass" aesthetic of Apple's Liquid Glass has been criticized for poor readability because the blur effect is insufficient, especially over busy backgrounds. [3] This demonstrates that transparency must be carefully balanced with contrast and visual hierarchy to avoid increasing cognitive load. [3]
• Color and Contrast for Action Prioritization: Color and contrast should be used not just for branding or aesthetics, but to guide attention and indicate interactivity. A primary action button could dynamically glow or intensify in color when it becomes available, drawing the user's eye without requiring a pop-up or explicit text. [63] Material Design 3 Expressive aims to use color and shape to guide attention and emphasize actions, and its research suggests this can improve usability. [25] However, the dynamic color system in Material Design 3 Expressive has faced criticism for potentially creating low contrast issues or diluting brand identity if not implemented carefully. [33] This underscores the need for robust accessibility guidelines to ensure that visual cues are perceivable by all users.

4.2. Interaction Principles from Real-World Physics to Reduce Cognitive Load

Leveraging principles from real-world physics can create digital environments that significantly reduce cognitive load by aligning with users' innate understanding of how objects behave. This goes beyond mere animation to fundamental behavioral consistency.

• Momentum and Friction for Scrolling and Navigation: Digital scrolling should exhibit momentum, allowing users to "fling" content and have it decelerate naturally, as if friction is acting upon it. [19] The speed and distance of the scroll should be proportional to the force of the "fling," providing predictable feedback. When reaching the end of a list, a subtle "bounce" effect, akin to a physical collision, can signal the boundary without jarring the user. [19] This predictable behavior reduces the extraneous cognitive load associated with understanding scroll mechanics and navigating large content areas.
• Mass and Inertia for Object Manipulation: UI elements could be perceived as having "mass," influencing their response to user input. A "heavier" object might require a stronger or longer drag gesture to move, while a "lighter" object might respond with more immediate velocity. This provides a tactile sense of control and differentiates interactive elements based on their perceived weight or importance. For instance, a fan blade in a UI could be designed to move as if it has mass, responding to touch with appropriate velocity and friction. [19]
• Elasticity and Spring Physics for Feedback: The "springs" concept, already present in Google's Material Design 3 Expressive motion system, is a promising direction. [30] When a button is pressed, it could compress and then spring back, providing immediate visual and haptic feedback that confirms the action. This "bouncy jiggle physics" [40], when calibrated appropriately, can make interactions feel more alive and natural, reducing uncertainty and cognitive effort. [31] However, careful calibration is essential to prevent animations from becoming overly "bouncy" or distracting, which can increase extraneous cognitive load. [38]
• Collision Detection and Response: Digital objects interacting with each other should exhibit physically plausible collision responses. For example, if a user drags one window into another, they might "bounce" off each other or merge in a predictable manner, rather than simply overlapping or disappearing. This adds a layer of realism and predictability to complex multi-window or multi-element interactions. Microsoft's "Magic of UI Physics" paper discusses principles like "Lucky Shot" where objects land precisely despite imprecise input, and "Force Fields" to constrain movement, showing how physics can be intentionally violated for usability. [19] This suggests a nuanced application of physics, where realism is balanced with user productivity.
• Gravity and Spatial Organization: In spatial computing environments like VisionOS, the concept of gravity can be leveraged to organize elements. Objects might naturally "fall" into alignment or group themselves based on proximity, reducing the cognitive effort required for manual arrangement. [66] This aligns with the VisionOS principle of placing essential information at the center of the user's field of view and using spacing to guide the eye. [66]

4.3. Beyond Aesthetics: How a Truly "Physical" UI Could Solve Legacy Problems

A truly "physical" UI, grounded in consistent behavioral principles rather than superficial aesthetics, holds the potential to address several persistent legacy problems that plague modern interfaces.

• Addressing Inconsistency (Microsoft's Challenge): The most significant challenge for Microsoft's Fluent Design is its pervasive inconsistency, stemming from the coexistence of modern and legacy UI elements. [54] A physical UI paradigm would mandate a universal set of interaction principles based on physics, regardless of the underlying code or visual style. This means that even if an old Win32 dialog looks different, its interactive elements (buttons, sliders, scrollbars) would behave with predictable momentum, friction, and responsiveness, fostering a consistent user experience at the behavioral level. This would reduce the cognitive burden of constantly adapting to disparate interaction patterns, allowing users to form a stable mental model of the system. [54]
• Improving Readability and Accessibility (Apple's Challenge): Apple's Liquid Glass struggles with readability due to excessive transparency and insufficient contrast. [3] A physical UI would prioritize the "material" properties of legibility. Instead of merely mimicking clear glass, digital materials would dynamically adjust their opacity, blur, and contrast based on background complexity and user settings to ensure text is always readable. This moves beyond a static aesthetic to a dynamic, functional material that adapts to maintain accessibility, as suggested by some proposed fixes for Liquid Glass. [3] This would ensure that the visual "delight" does not compromise fundamental usability for users with varying visual abilities.
• Optimizing for Experienced Users (Google's Challenge): Material Design 3 Expressive, while enhancing initial usability for new users, risks visual clutter and inefficiency for experienced users. [38] A physical UI would allow for "progressive disclosure" of complexity. Basic interactions would be highly intuitive and physically responsive, while advanced options could be revealed through natural gestures or contextual cues, rather than always being visually prominent. For example, a "heavy" button might indicate a primary action, while "lighter" elements could be secondary functions, reducing visual noise for power users. The motion-physics system could also be tuned to offer different "weights" or "bounciness" for different user profiles or contexts, allowing for a more subtle and efficient experience for those who have developed muscle memory. [40]
• Enhancing Discoverability and Learnability: When UI elements behave like physical objects, their affordances become inherently clearer. A draggable element "feels" draggable; a clickable button "feels" clickable. [62] This reduces the need for explicit labels or tutorials, making interfaces more discoverable and learnable. Users can intuitively explore and understand functionality through direct manipulation and predictable physical responses, rather than relying on memorization or trial-and-error. [61]
• Reducing Decision Fatigue: By making interactions more intuitive and predictable, a physical UI minimizes the "extraneous cognitive load" associated with deciphering complex interfaces. [6] When users don't have to constantly think about how to interact, they can focus their mental energy on the task at hand, thereby reducing decision fatigue and improving overall productivity. This is achieved by streamlining workflows, using familiar patterns, and providing clear, physically consistent feedback. [6]

5\. Conclusions

The contemporary landscape of UI design, epitomized by Apple's Liquid Glass, Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, and Microsoft's Fluent Design, demonstrates a compelling pursuit of visual sophistication. These systems leverage advanced hardware capabilities to render interfaces with unprecedented depth, translucency, and dynamic responsiveness, often drawing inspiration from the aesthetic qualities of glass. However, this report concludes that their collective approach, while visually striking, predominantly represents a superficial grasp of "digital physicality." The emphasis has largely remained on mimicking the appearance of physical materials rather than deeply integrating the behavioral principles and cognitive alignment that define true real-world interaction.

Apple's Liquid Glass, despite its unified aesthetic across platforms, has faced significant user backlash concerning readability and accessibility, particularly due to insufficient contrast and blur over busy backgrounds. [3] This highlights a critical tension between aesthetic "delight" and fundamental usability, suggesting that visual novelty has, in some instances, overshadowed practical considerations. The computational demands of simulating realistic glass refraction also raise concerns about performance and battery life. [4]

Google's Material Design 3 Expressive, while extensively researched and aiming for emotional engagement, risks over-optimizing for initial user attraction. Its enlarged elements and "bouncy jiggle physics" [40] may introduce visual clutter and reduce efficiency for experienced users, who prioritize speed and information density over playful animations. [38] Furthermore, the fragmented rollout and potential for dynamic color to compromise contrast undermine its stated goals of consistency and accessibility. [33]

Microsoft's Fluent Design, despite a well-articulated set of principles centered on light, depth, motion, material, and scale, is fundamentally hampered by a pervasive lack of consistency. The persistent coexistence of modern Fluent elements with legacy UI components creates a disjointed and cognitively demanding user experience, preventing the formation of a stable mental model of the system. [54] This systemic inconsistency, rooted in a commitment to backward compatibility, represents a significant barrier to achieving a truly cohesive and physically intuitive interface.

The "glass cage" metaphor aptly describes this collective shortcoming: interfaces that are visually appealing but ultimately restrict seamless cognitive flow by increasing extraneous cognitive load. When UIs prioritize superficial mimicry over predictable, physically consistent behavior, users are forced to expend mental energy deciphering interactions, leading to frustration and reduced efficiency.

The future of UI design, therefore, lies in moving beyond this aesthetic mimicry towards a deeper understanding and application of digital physicality. This involves:

• Purposeful Affordances: Utilizing light, material, and motion not as decoration, but as non-verbal cues that inherently communicate interaction possibilities, dynamically adapting to context and user state.
• Behavioral Consistency: Implementing interaction principles derived from real-world physics (e.g., momentum, friction, elasticity) to ensure digital elements respond predictably and intuitively, reducing cognitive load.
• Systemic Cohesion: Addressing legacy inconsistencies and fragmentation by applying a universal behavioral framework that transcends visual styles, fostering a unified and predictable user experience across all platforms and applications.

By embracing these principles, UI design can transition from merely looking physical to genuinely behaving physically, thereby unlocking a new era of intuitive, efficient, and cognitively harmonious digital interaction. This shift promises not only enhanced usability but also the resolution of long-standing problems that continue to plague modern computing environments.

#### Works cited

1. WWDC 2025: iOS 26, Liquid Glass design and Apple's AI shortfall \- Fox News, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.foxnews.com/tech/wwdc-2025-ios-26-liquid-glass-design-apples-ai-shortfall](https://www.foxnews.com/tech/wwdc-2025-ios-26-liquid-glass-design-apples-ai-shortfall)

2. Apple's Liquid Glass is Windows Vista done well \- Engadget, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.engadget.com/computing/apples-liquid-glass-is-windows-vista-done-well-181954910.html](https://www.engadget.com/computing/apples-liquid-glass-is-windows-vista-done-well-181954910.html)

3. "Steve Jobs would've fired everyone": iOS 26 Liquid Glass UI comes under fire for poor readability \- Notebookcheck, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.notebookcheck.net/Steve-Jobs-would-ve-fired-everyone-iOS-26-Liquid-Glass-UI-comes-under-fire-for-poor-readability.1033787.0.html](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Steve-Jobs-would-ve-fired-everyone-iOS-26-Liquid-Glass-UI-comes-under-fire-for-poor-readability.1033787.0.html)

4. iOS 26 thoughts from a recent switcher : r/GooglePixel \- Reddit, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1l7rr6r/ios\_26\_thoughts\_from\_a\_recent\_switcher/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1l7rr6r/ios_26_thoughts_from_a_recent_switcher/)

5. iOS 26 is a Dazzling Misstep in Design Over Function \- Marksmen Daily, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://marksmendaily.com/technology/ios-26-is-a-dazzling-misstep-in-design-over-function/](https://marksmendaily.com/technology/ios-26-is-a-dazzling-misstep-in-design-over-function/)

6. Cognitive Load Theory in UI Design | Aufait UX, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.aufaitux.com/blog/cognitive-load-theory-ui-design/](https://www.aufaitux.com/blog/cognitive-load-theory-ui-design/)

7. How Cognitive Psychology Principles Can Transform User Interface Design and Boost User Engagement \- Zigpoll, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.zigpoll.com/content/how-can-principles-from-cognitive-psychology-be-applied-to-improve-user-interface-design-and-enhance-user-engagement](https://www.zigpoll.com/content/how-can-principles-from-cognitive-psychology-be-applied-to-improve-user-interface-design-and-enhance-user-engagement)

8. 10 UI design principles to follow in 2025 \- Lyssna, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.lyssna.com/blog/ui-design-principles/](https://www.lyssna.com/blog/ui-design-principles/)

9. Cognitive Load and UX | Aguayo's Blog, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://aguayo.co/en/blog-aguayo-user-experience/cognitive-load/](https://aguayo.co/en/blog-aguayo-user-experience/cognitive-load/)

10. Cognitive Load in UX Design: Impact on User Engagement & Usability, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.thealien.design/insights/cognitive-load-in-ux-design](https://www.thealien.design/insights/cognitive-load-in-ux-design)

11. Apple announces 'Liquid Glass' design for iOS, macOS, and its other operating systems, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/wwdc-2025-apple-announces-liquid-glass-design-for-ios-macos-and-its-other-operating-systems/articleshow/121734537.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/wwdc-2025-apple-announces-liquid-glass-design-for-ios-macos-and-its-other-operating-systems/articleshow/121734537.cms)

12. Apple's Biggest Reveals at WWDC 2025: iOS 26, Liquid Glass Design and Call Screening, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/everything-announced-at-apple-wwdc-2025-new-ios-ipados-macos-visionos-tvos-watchos-updates/](https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/everything-announced-at-apple-wwdc-2025-new-ios-ipados-macos-visionos-tvos-watchos-updates/)

13. Material \- Fluent 2 Design System, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://fluent2.microsoft.design/material](https://fluent2.microsoft.design/material)

14. Apple Liquid Glass: The UX Evolution of Adaptive Interfaces \- Supercharge Design, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://supercharge.design/blog/apple-liquid-glass-the-ux-evolution-of-adaptive-interfaces](https://supercharge.design/blog/apple-liquid-glass-the-ux-evolution-of-adaptive-interfaces)

15. Liquid Glass \- Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid\_Glass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Glass)

16. Apple's “Liquid Glass” and What It Means for Accessibility : r/webdev \- Reddit, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1l85a3n/apples\_liquid\_glass\_and\_what\_it\_means\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1l85a3n/apples_liquid_glass_and_what_it_means_for/)

17. iOS 26's Liquid Glass redesign met with backlash from Apple users: 'Please tone it down', accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/ios-26-s-liquid-glass-redesign-met-with-backlash-from-apple-users-please-tone-it-down-11749525610372.html](https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/ios-26-s-liquid-glass-redesign-met-with-backlash-from-apple-users-please-tone-it-down-11749525610372.html)

18. Apple's New iOS 26 Liquid Glass Design Faces Criticism \- GuruFocus, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.gurufocus.com/news/2920065/apples-new-ios-26-liquid-glass-design-faces-criticism](https://www.gurufocus.com/news/2920065/apples-new-ios-26-liquid-glass-design-faces-criticism)

19. The Magic of UI Physics \- Microsoft, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/uiphysics09.pdf](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/uiphysics09.pdf)

20. 2025 Guide to Understand and Minimize User Friction \- Survicate, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://survicate.com/blog/user-friction/](https://survicate.com/blog/user-friction/)

21. Apple Updates Design Resources for iOS 26 Liquid Glass Interface \- MacRumors, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/11/apple-updates-design-resources-ios-26/](https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/11/apple-updates-design-resources-ios-26/)

22. Apple introduces a delightful and elegant new software design, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-introduces-a-delightful-and-elegant-new-software-design/](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-introduces-a-delightful-and-elegant-new-software-design/)

23. accessed December 31, 1969, [https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/visionos/overview/design-for-spatial-computing/](https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/visionos/overview/design-for-spatial-computing/)

24. Year-Based iOS 26 Introduces Liquid Glass Design Across Apple Devices \- DesignRush, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.designrush.com/news/year-based-ios-26-introduces-liquid-glass-design-across-apple-devices](https://www.designrush.com/news/year-based-ios-26-introduces-liquid-glass-design-across-apple-devices)

25. Google ushers in age of "expressive" interfaces with Material Design update \- Dezeen, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.dezeen.com/2025/05/28/google-ushers-in-age-of-expressive-interfaces-with-material-design-update/](https://www.dezeen.com/2025/05/28/google-ushers-in-age-of-expressive-interfaces-with-material-design-update/)

26. Expressive Design: Google's UX Research, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://design.google/library/expressive-material-design-google-research](https://design.google/library/expressive-material-design-google-research)

27. Material Design 3 in Compose | Jetpack Compose \- Android Developers, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/compose/designsystems/material3](https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/compose/designsystems/material3)

28. Material 3 Expressive design language | Wear \- Android Developers, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://developer.android.com/design/ui/wear/guides/get-started/apply](https://developer.android.com/design/ui/wear/guides/get-started/apply)

29. Styles \- Material Design 3 \- Browse color, shape, typography, and more, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://m3.material.io/styles](https://m3.material.io/styles)

30. Upgrade Material Design to Material 3 Expressive · Issue \#29626 · dotnet/maui \- GitHub, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://github.com/dotnet/maui/issues/29626](https://github.com/dotnet/maui/issues/29626)

31. Google announces Android 16's Material 3 Expressive redesign, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://9to5google.com/2025/05/13/android-16-material-3-expressive-redesign/?extended-comments=1](https://9to5google.com/2025/05/13/android-16-material-3-expressive-redesign/?extended-comments=1)

32. Start building with Material 3 Expressive, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://m3.material.io/blog/building-with-m3-expressive](https://m3.material.io/blog/building-with-m3-expressive)

33. Material 3 Expressive: What's New and Why it Matters for Designers \- Supercharge Design, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://supercharge.design/blog/material-3-expressive](https://supercharge.design/blog/material-3-expressive)

34. Motion – Material Design 3, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://m3.material.io/styles/motion/overview/how-it-works](https://m3.material.io/styles/motion/overview/how-it-works)

35. 5 steps for including motion design in your system, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.designsystems.com/5-steps-for-including-motion-design-in-your-system/](https://www.designsystems.com/5-steps-for-including-motion-design-in-your-system/)

36. Material Design UI: An Introduction to Features like Motion and Interactions \- UXPin, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.uxpin.com/studio/blog/an-introduction-to-interactions-with-material-design/](https://www.uxpin.com/studio/blog/an-introduction-to-interactions-with-material-design/)

37. Liquid Glass | Apple Developer Documentation, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technologyoverviews/liquid-glass](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technologyoverviews/liquid-glass)

38. Everything You Need To Know About Material 3 Expressive (Without The Hype), accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.designwhine.com/material-3-expressive-details/](https://www.designwhine.com/material-3-expressive-details/)

39. Material 3 Expressive \- Hacker News, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43975352](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43975352)

40. Thanks to Material 3 Expressive, I smile every time I pick up my Pixel \- Pocket-lint, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.pocket-lint.com/google-new-material-3-expressive-makes-me-smile/](https://www.pocket-lint.com/google-new-material-3-expressive-makes-me-smile/)

41. Oops\! Google's 'Material 3 Expressive' Android Design Language Leaked Ahead of Schedule | AI News \- OpenTools, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://opentools.ai/news/oops-googles-material-3-expressive-android-design-language-leaked-ahead-of-schedule](https://opentools.ai/news/oops-googles-material-3-expressive-android-design-language-leaked-ahead-of-schedule)

42. Thoughts on Google's new Material 3 Expressive? Better or Worse than Apple's "Liquid Glass?" : r/Design \- Reddit, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/1l7cynw/thoughts\_on\_googles\_new\_material\_3\_expressive/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/1l7cynw/thoughts_on_googles_new_material_3_expressive/)

43. Dynamic color does not respect system's color contrast setting · Issue \#627 · material-foundation/flutter-packages \- GitHub, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://github.com/material-foundation/flutter-packages/issues/627](https://github.com/material-foundation/flutter-packages/issues/627)

44. Modern, refreshed look for model-driven apps \- Power Apps | Microsoft Learn, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-apps/user/modern-fluent-design](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-apps/user/modern-fluent-design)

45. Fluent UI \- Microsoft Design System Overview: Features, Principles & Resources \- Motiff, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://motiff.com/design-system-wiki/design-systems-overview/microsoft-fluent-ui](https://motiff.com/design-system-wiki/design-systems-overview/microsoft-fluent-ui)

46. Fluent Design System \- Wikipedia, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent\_Design\_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_Design_System)

47. Acrylic material \- Windows apps | Microsoft Learn, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/acrylic](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/acrylic)

48. Redesigning How We Work at Microsoft with Generative AI, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.microsoft.com/insidetrack/blog/redesigning-how-we-work-at-microsoft-with-generative-ai/](https://www.microsoft.com/insidetrack/blog/redesigning-how-we-work-at-microsoft-with-generative-ai/)

49. Fluent 2 Design System: Home, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://fluent2.microsoft.design/](https://fluent2.microsoft.design/)

50. We have a problem: the inconsistency in the design does not seem to improve, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/edgeinsiderdiscussions/we-have-a-problem-the-inconsistency-in-the-design-does-not-seem-to-improve/3736678](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/discussions/edgeinsiderdiscussions/we-have-a-problem-the-inconsistency-in-the-design-does-not-seem-to-improve/3736678)

51. Microsoft IS PHYSICALLY UNABLE to design a consistent UI between apps : r/Windows11, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/1d1ujai/microsoft\_is\_physically\_unable\_to\_design\_a/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/1d1ujai/microsoft_is_physically_unable_to_design_a/)

52. Windows 11 unresolved UI design inconsistencies (still) in 2025 \- YouTube, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Yknd2y44s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Yknd2y44s)

53. Discussion \- Updating our interface with Fluent touches | Microsoft Community Hub, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/discussions/discussion-updating-our-interface-with-fluent-touches/m-p/1522286/highlight/true](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/discussions/discussion-updating-our-interface-with-fluent-touches/m-p/1522286/highlight/true)

54. The Nightmare of Microsoft's Inconsistent UI: A User's Lament \- Zoo Computer Repairs 2024, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.zoorepairs.com.au/the-nightmare-of-microsofts-inconsistent-ui-a-users-lament/](https://www.zoorepairs.com.au/the-nightmare-of-microsofts-inconsistent-ui-a-users-lament/)

55. 6 Years In and Fluent Design (and Windows UI In General) Is Still Disappointing, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://allaboutwindows10andbeyond.weebly.com/home/6-years-in-and-fluent-design-is-still-disappointing](https://allaboutwindows10andbeyond.weebly.com/home/6-years-in-and-fluent-design-is-still-disappointing)

56. Windows 11 Receives an updated "Reset this PC" dialog with Fluent Design touches, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://winaero.com/windows-11-receives-an-updated-reset-this-pc-dialog-with-fluent-design-touches/](https://winaero.com/windows-11-receives-an-updated-reset-this-pc-dialog-with-fluent-design-touches/)

57. Layers of UI Inconsistencies in Windows 11 \- Michael Tsai, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://mjtsai.com/blog/2023/01/03/layers-of-ui-inconsistencies-in-windows-11/](https://mjtsai.com/blog/2023/01/03/layers-of-ui-inconsistencies-in-windows-11/)

58. How many layers of UI inconsistencies are in Windows 11? | Hacker News, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34216619](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34216619)

59. A Windows Control Panel Retrospective Amidst A Concerning UX Shift | Hackaday, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://hackaday.com/2024/09/03/a-windows-control-panel-retrospective-amidst-a-concerning-ux-shift/](https://hackaday.com/2024/09/03/a-windows-control-panel-retrospective-amidst-a-concerning-ux-shift/)

60. What are Affordances? | IxDF \- The Interaction Design Foundation, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/affordances](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/affordances)

61. 11 Effective Interaction Design Principles for Seamless Digital Interactions \- Musemind, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://musemind.agency/blog/interaction-design-principles](https://musemind.agency/blog/interaction-design-principles)

62. What are affordances in UX design? \- LogRocket Blog, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://blog.logrocket.com/ux-design/affordances-ux-design/](https://blog.logrocket.com/ux-design/affordances-ux-design/)

63. Understanding UI Affordances: Creating Intuitive and User-Friendly Interfaces \- VERSIONS®, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://versions.com/user-interface-design/understanding-ui-affordances-creating-intuitive-and-user-friendly-interfaces/](https://versions.com/user-interface-design/understanding-ui-affordances-creating-intuitive-and-user-friendly-interfaces/)

64. Affordance: The Silent Signal That Divides Art and Design | Skillshare Blog, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://www.skillshare.com/en/blog/affordance-the-silent-signal-that-divides-art-and-design/](https://www.skillshare.com/en/blog/affordance-the-silent-signal-that-divides-art-and-design/)

65. Microinteractions in UI/UX Design: Trends, Examples & Best Practices \- Mobisoft Infotech, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://mobisoftinfotech.com/resources/blog/microinteractions-ui-ux-design-trends-examples](https://mobisoftinfotech.com/resources/blog/microinteractions-ui-ux-design-trends-examples)

66. The Complete Guide to Designing for visionOS \- Think Design, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://think.design/blog/the-complete-guide-to-designing-for-visionos/](https://think.design/blog/the-complete-guide-to-designing-for-visionos/)

67. Fluent UI \- Get started \- Fluent UI \- Microsoft Developer, accessed June 11, 2025, [https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/fluentui](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/fluentui)