Why Don’t We See Morphism in Real-World UI Design Systems?

The latest developments in UI design have emerged in the last few years, including the blooming Glassmorphism, Neumorphism, and Skeuomorphism. By adding visually appealing effects that convey depth and realism, or by imitating real-world materials, these approaches seek to improve user interfaces. Morphism based designs are appealing and well-liked in design circles, but they haven’t caught on in practical applications. Let’s examine why actual UI design systems do not commonly employ morphism, particularly Glass-morphism.

What is Morphism in UI Design?

A group of UI design ideas that fuse real-world visual aspects with digital interfaces are collectively referred to as morphism. These patterns consist of:

• Skeuomorphism: Icons that resemble actual buttons or tools are examples of how to imitate real-world items with intricate textures, contours, and shadows.
• Neumorphism: Soft, three-dimensional parts are produced with light shadows and highlights that give the impression of being carved out or projecting from the background.
• Glassmorphism: A relatively recent fad in which the appearance of transparent or frosted glass is mimicked. It frequently creates an airy, visually arresting look by combining layered transparency with blurred backgrounds.

Although these designs provide a novel and aesthetically pleasing method of UI design, there are several pragmatic issues that prevent these styles from being widely used in practical applications.

1. Accessibility Issues

Accessibility is one of the main barriers to morphism in UI design. Particularly Glassmorphism and Neumorphism concentrate largely on delicate visual elements like transparency, gradients, and soft shadows. Even though these can have amazing visuals, they frequently lead to low contrast between pieces, which makes it harder for people with vision impairments to tell one from the other.

For example, the subtle blending of shadows in Neumorphism can obscure buttons and other interactive elements, especially for those with impaired vision or color blindness. Similar to this, if the background contrasts poorly with the text in Glassmorphism, the translucent layers may make it more difficult to read.

Modern design places a high value on accessibility, and neglecting it in favor of aesthetics might drive away a sizable percentage of the user population. On the other hand, design systems that emphasize strong contrast, bold font, and unambiguous interaction signals, such as material design or flat design, are more inclusive.

2. Complexity in Interaction

The tendency of morphism to conflate decorative and interactive elements is another drawback. For example, in Glassmorphism, elements frequently take the form of semi-transparent, floating cards. Although these may have an elegant appearance, people may not be clear about which parts are actual.

Users may become frustrated by unclear affordance, which are visual cues that indicate how to interact with an element. This is especially true if users are unclear if an element is a button, a card, or just part of the background. Similar problems plague neumorphism, as it is challenging to discern between clickable buttons and static design elements because of the delicate blending.

Effective UX in the real world depends on simple and straightforward interaction patterns. The user experience is significantly more functional when using flat design because of its recognizable buttons, icons, and affordances.

between clickable buttons and static design elements because to the delicate blending.

3. Performance Overheads

Although both Glassmorphism and Neumorphism can produce visually striking results, they require more processing power. Glassmorphism needs real-time backdrop blurring and transparency effects, whereas Neumorphism mostly relies on displaying gradients and shadows to generate a 3D effect.

Particularly on lower-end mobile devices, these components put more strain on the graphics processor of the device, resulting in decreased performance and increased battery usage. Because user experience is heavily reliant on speed and efficiency, especially on mobile platforms, designers typically choose lightweight design systems with low performance overheads.

4. Glassmorphism’s Scalability Issues

When developing for different screen sizes, glassmorphism can cause scaling challenges because of its emphasis on transparency and blurring. When seen on a smaller device with less resolution, something that appears fantastic on a large screen may turn into a disorganized mess. The backdrop content has a significant influence on the frosted glass effect and can differ greatly from user to user, producing uneven outcomes.

Glassmorphism’s reliance on background blur and layering might rupture the design consistency in responsive design, when UI elements must adjust to multiple screens, resulting in poor usability. Because of this, it is difficult to use Glassmorphism consistently across many platforms and screen sizes.

5. Flat Design and Material Design’s Dominance

Because they prioritize simplicity, clarity, and functionality, design trends like material design and flat design have established themselves as industry standards. For instance, material design creates depth with layering and soft shadows, but it counterbalances this with simple-to-use, effective user interface elements.

Design systems that are flat and material prioritize:

• High contrast to make text easier to read
• For obvious interaction locations, use bold colors.
• Simplified icons that lighten the mental strain.

In addition to being performance-optimized and scalable across various platforms, these design systems are more appropriate for practical uses than morphism trends.

6. Aesthetic Fatigue

Despite their initial visual attractiveness, morphism styles including glassmorphism, skeuomorphism, and neumorphism are prone to aesthetic weariness. At first, users could be drawn to the distinctive appearance, but too stylistic components might grow tiresome or annoying after a while, especially if they don’t improve usability.

For instance, skeuomorphism was very popular in the early days of smartphones but was swiftly superseded by flat, simpler designs. Similar critiques have been leveled at neumorphism: what is novel and innovative today can seem antiquated and overly convoluted tomorrow. If glassmorphism puts aesthetics before user experience, it might take the same course.

7. Niche Applications of Glassmorphism

Nevertheless, there are certain specialized situations where Glassmorphism works well and allows aesthetics to trump functionality. It is frequently utilized, for instance, in advertising materials, landing pages, and portfolio websites where aesthetic appeal is crucial. Glassmorphism is unlikely to take over, though, in common use scenarios where usability and performance are critical, such as enterprise software or smartphone apps.

Conclusion: Morphism’s Real-World Viability

Although Skeuomorphism, Neumorphism, and Glassmorphism present a novel and visually captivating approach to UI design, they encounter considerable obstacles in terms of pragmatic, real-world implementations. These design approaches are less desirable for widespread usage due to problems with scalability, performance overheads, accessibility, and interaction clarity.

Nevertheless, some forms of morphism, namely Glassmorphism, might survive in specialized applications where aesthetics trump utility. But because of their ease of use, scalability, and focus on the user experience, material design and flat design will likely continue to be the most popular options for the foreseeable future.

Creating interfaces that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also efficient, effective, and accessible is the ultimate goal of user interface design. Despite having a captivating appearance, morphism finds it difficult to strike a balance between these essential components when used in practical applications.