While it’s not great to provide a UI library but not give developers all of the UI components, theoretically you could implement this yourself — so it’s the least of your concerns: https://boehs.org/node/private-apis
Something that’s wrong about this blur is that it’s expanding everything that’s content on the page outwards, but not expanding things inwards from outside the fold as well.
This gives the illusion that there’s a fisheye or barrel distortion at the edge. You can see this most strongly when the images get to the top edge. The edges of the image curve outwards.
Apples blur doesn’t do that. It seems to expand the content outwards and then blur it uniformly from there. This means that the lines of the image do become fuzzier (as a blur would) but they effectively seem to be axis aligned, as you get the background blurring inwards as well reducing the effect of expansion.
There also seems to be some pre-emptive blurring that adds to that. If I bring an image near the top edge but not under the blur section, the top edge will be a blurred copy of the image, then fall into the background and then to the crisp image.
When I was still doing web development, I developed Safari-first (our target market was on Macs anyway), and then tested in Chrome later, and I would always run into issues like the one in this blog where adding a border-radius broke something, or if you did this specific thing, scrolling slowed down to a crawl.
So I always thought it was weird when people complained that Safari was the buggy one holding the web back, since I was always running into Chrome bugs/performance pits instead. (typically Firefox worked great)
This just reinforces my notion that these people complaining developed within their known Chrome constraints (Chrome developers known intuitively what you can't do), and then ran into Safari bugs, whereas if they developed within Safari constraints and then moved to Chrome, they'd run into just as many bugs.
Experience in teams has taught me that this is 100% correct. I even had a guy once who decided to develop using exclusively Safari for a couple weeks before giving up because he kept missing “obvious” style bugs other people would find in review.
Google also built superior dev tools into Chrome in many respects. Lastly, many developers don’t or won’t ever read W3C/WhatWG/TC39/IETF specs or peruse browser bug trackers beyond solving the immediate problem they’re faced with, so blame can often be very arbitrary.
> Throughout the years, apple consistently delivers great design. They seem to always define (or at least popularize) a new trend, which then storms the world and everyone copies it
To the loss of everyone. This is the same company that introduced disappearing scrollbars, just one of many dumb design decisions.
What modern design seems to forget, is that at the end of the day, people actually want to USE the interface, not just look at it.
It’s quite ironic that we have bigger, higher resolution screens than ever before, and yet we have eschewed visible controls and detail/texture in favour of minimalism and flat design.
I get why: design trends from mobile have moved upwards to desktops. But man, I find myself missing Leopard-era macOS design a lot lately.
I think of modern flat design as a reaction to the opulent skeuomorphism that had gone too far 10 years ago. My problem is that I hate the flatness, and liked more of the older interfaces. If I had the option of looking at Windows 95-style interfaces forever instead of whatever we have now, I'd go with Windows 95.
Disappearing scrollbars on the desktop is the bane of my existence. Gnome is unusable to me for this reason (it can be worked around but it doesn't always work and I don't want to fight my OS).
Apple also introduced an accessibility setting with the disappearing sidebar that forces all apps on macOS to show the sidebar at all times. I use it [1], it’s great. It’s not Apple’s fault that designers on other platforms copy their designs but not their accessibility.
[1] And yes, because I use it, I obviously agree that the design is one of those classic “form over function” things that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
I don’t disagree in principle. But people also have to look at the interface while using it. There’s a balance, for sure, but strict utilitarian design is a no for me.
I built an webapp for my kids that was supposed to run on a raspberry pi plugged to a 4k tv. Having these blurred tiles that swoosh on the screen looks amazing on my laptop.
Running this on the RP4 was less than 1fps. Turned off the blur it works great, even the animation is great.
Tested blur on a static element, the entire page crawls. These effects looks great, but are performance hogs.
It used to be the case that some CSS was hardware accelerated in one browser and not in another. I haven't checked in a long time but that would explain the perf difference.
Yeah, the performance takes a hit and I can see it being unusable on a lot of devices. As I say in the post, “(the blur) just plainly shouldn’t be used anywhere on the web”, at least not in this form.
> Throughout the years, apple consistently delivers great design.
I personally would rephrase this as "Apple consistently markets their design as great". Apple is probably the best example of how far marketing and PR can get you with fairly run of the mill design.
I agree. I recall the first time I used an Apple device after the "corner swipes" became the norm. I was shocked at how challenging it was to get right, then puzzled by the lack of any labels on what I saw. I recall thinking, "this really isn't a simple or intuitive design".
Apple designs are certainly gorgeous and well marketed, but there are multiple instances where their design seems to stand in the way of utility and practicality.
I suppose implementing effects like this in CSS instead of GPU shaders is the modern version of implementing a 3D spinning cube on an 8-bit home computer. Pushing the hardware to its limits is now too open-ended, so we push specifications to their limits instead.
A dedicated shader could do it far more efficiently. Ideally, you would create a mip chain, then as you move towards the blurrier parts of the image, spread your taps farther apart and choose them from lower-resolution mips. You could even have an animated "blur map" to control where the blur is, and it would run at 60 fps ez.
This runs at 165 fps in Shadertoy for me (warning all constants are wild guesses, use "pebbles" for iChannel1):
void mainImage( out vec4 fragColor, in vec2 fragCoord )
{
// Normalized pixel coordinates (from 0 to 1)
vec2 uv = fragCoord/iResolution.xy;
float blurRadius = clamp(1.5 * (texture(iChannel1, uv/2.0 + vec2(iTime, iTime / 2.0)/6.0).x - 0.5) + 0.5, 0.0, 1.0);
float mipmapLevel = fwidth(uv).x;
float biasedMip = mipmapLevel + blurRadius * 4.0;
vec3 final = (3.0/8.0) * textureLod(iChannel0, uv, biasedMip).xyz;
for (float i = 0.0; i < 6.28; i += 6.28/5.0) {
final += (1.0/8.0) * textureLod(iChannel0, uv + 0.02 * blurRadius * vec2(sin(i), cos(i)), biasedMip).xyz;
}
// Output to screen
fragColor = vec4(final.xyz,1.0);
}
Scrolling up and down on this website, the top "progressive blur" was annoying: too strong in the vertical expansion, on too small an area in the height used.
The performance is terrible for me too and I'm using last year's Snapdragon flagship, it feels like it's dropping to something like 15-20fps when scrolling. God help anyone trying to read this on a lower end device.
Readit News
Fun fact: Apple doesn't let us use CAFilter in SwiftUI. It's a "them" privilege, and if we want it we need to do it ourselves*, just like you
* or obfuscate the code and continue in the great game of cat and mouse: https://github.com/aheze/VariableBlurView/blob/main/Sources/...
This gives the illusion that there’s a fisheye or barrel distortion at the edge. You can see this most strongly when the images get to the top edge. The edges of the image curve outwards.
Apples blur doesn’t do that. It seems to expand the content outwards and then blur it uniformly from there. This means that the lines of the image do become fuzzier (as a blur would) but they effectively seem to be axis aligned, as you get the background blurring inwards as well reducing the effect of expansion.
There also seems to be some pre-emptive blurring that adds to that. If I bring an image near the top edge but not under the blur section, the top edge will be a blurred copy of the image, then fall into the background and then to the crisp image.
So I always thought it was weird when people complained that Safari was the buggy one holding the web back, since I was always running into Chrome bugs/performance pits instead. (typically Firefox worked great)
This just reinforces my notion that these people complaining developed within their known Chrome constraints (Chrome developers known intuitively what you can't do), and then ran into Safari bugs, whereas if they developed within Safari constraints and then moved to Chrome, they'd run into just as many bugs.
Google also built superior dev tools into Chrome in many respects. Lastly, many developers don’t or won’t ever read W3C/WhatWG/TC39/IETF specs or peruse browser bug trackers beyond solving the immediate problem they’re faced with, so blame can often be very arbitrary.
To the loss of everyone. This is the same company that introduced disappearing scrollbars, just one of many dumb design decisions.
What modern design seems to forget, is that at the end of the day, people actually want to USE the interface, not just look at it.
I get why: design trends from mobile have moved upwards to desktops. But man, I find myself missing Leopard-era macOS design a lot lately.
Oh wait: https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
Deleted Comment
[1] And yes, because I use it, I obviously agree that the design is one of those classic “form over function” things that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Running this on the RP4 was less than 1fps. Turned off the blur it works great, even the animation is great.
Tested blur on a static element, the entire page crawls. These effects looks great, but are performance hogs.
I personally would rephrase this as "Apple consistently markets their design as great". Apple is probably the best example of how far marketing and PR can get you with fairly run of the mill design.
Apple designs are certainly gorgeous and well marketed, but there are multiple instances where their design seems to stand in the way of utility and practicality.
This runs at 165 fps in Shadertoy for me (warning all constants are wild guesses, use "pebbles" for iChannel1):