The Interface is Content

I am increasingly irritated by the notion that the user interface (UI) has to disappear in order to make the ‘content’ more prominent. We have heard it frequently in presentations and press releases at the introduction of the new Liquid Glass user interface paradigm from Apple.

In this sense, the interface is considered to be a nuisance that stands in the way of the ‘real’ content. The underlying message is that all the elements on screen that actually allow you to do something are a superfluous distraction.

This premise is fundamentally wrong. There are two aspects that I find particularly problematic:

I don’t like the attitude. De-emphasising the user interface implies that you should not really do something on the computer. Don’t draw, write, compose, design, create. De-emphasising the user interface turns you into a consumer — not a creator. It makes you more passive and less active. The user interface obviously should not overwhelm. Instead, it should be evocative, helpful, and encourage you to create things. But in my experience, computers and mobile phones are increasingly becoming like set-top boxes. They coax you to consume content, but not to make anything yourself.

However, my main problem with the above line of thinking is that it suggests that the user interface can easily be separated from the content. That the UI is a purely an operational layer that helps you to manipulate the content — and at the same time conceals and obfuscates the content. It suggests that if you reduce it or remove it, you will gain clarity and better access to your content.

The exact opposite is true. A good user interface enables you to understand and navigate the complexities on screen. It visually (and sometimes sonically and haptically) creates a relationship between all sorts of concepts, visual representations and media items. And — just as important — the UI makes these elements itself actionable. The user interface conveys meaning. If you reduce it, you consequently make your content less meaningful.

To be clear: there are many terrible user interfaces out there. But simply eliminating them is not going to solve the problem. They need to be improved — not removed. And what we are currently witnessing is that good user interfaces like the macOS Finder are made much, much worse by the belief that the user interface should be reduced (like the toolbar) and removed (like the scroll bars).

I would like to close this essay with a thought experiment. Let us discuss a specific kind of content: text. In order to better convey the meaning of a text, typographers use visual cues like paragraphs, punctuation, headlines, indentions, page numbers — and of course they choose a typeface that best represents the message.

Strictly speaking, these typographic elements are not part of the ‘content’. But without them the text is much less clear.

Furthermore, certain kinds of texts contain words and lines that are also not part of the ‘content’ but simply help the reader to understand the intention of the author. A script of a play provides (quite literally) context and usually contains stage directions, cues, speech prefixes and setting descriptions.

So what would happen if we remove the context and all these ‘useless’ typographic elements?

Let’s have a look at an excerpt from ‘Much Ado about Nothing’ by William Shakespeare.

[Enter BEATRICE]
Beatrice: Against my will I am sent to bid you come in to dinner.
Benedick: Fair Beatrice, I thank you for your pains.
Beatrice: I took no more pains for those thanks than you take pains to thank me: if it had been painful, I would not have come.
Benedick: You take pleasure then in the message?
Beatrice: Yea, just so much as you may take upon a knife’s point and choke a daw withal. You have no stomach, signior: fare you well.
[Exit]

And now let’s remove all ‘unnecessary’ typographic / user interface elements:

against my will i am sent to bid you come in to dinner fair beatrice i thank you for your pains i took no more pains for those thanks than you take pains to thank me if it had been painful i would not have come you take pleasure then in the message yea just so much as you may take upon a knifes point and choke a daw withal you have no stomach signior fare you well

All the ‘content’ is still there. But the text is far less readable.

If you think it’s silly to remove all forms of punctuation, I would like to point out that punctuation is a fairly recent development. Many writing systems provide the reader with very limited indications on how the text is meant to be read.

In the above example, I was actually kind enough not to delete the space between the words, which strictly speaking is also a form of punctuation. Scriptio continua — writing without spaces — was fairly common up until mediaeval times. But having spaces, and all other forms of typographic elements, is crucial to fast reading. Typographic elements help the reader to understand better what the author wanted to say.

Typography is a user interface for text. Our reading habits today rely heavily on typographic elements for understanding the meaning of a printed page or a digital screen.

Typography conveys meaning, user interfaces convey meaning. They cannot be separated from the content.

Simply removing user interface elements is not solving any problems. No doubt — there are many bad user interfaces out there. But good user interfaces are an integral part of the content. A good user interfaces creates meaning, affordances and understanding.

If you reduce the user interface, you consequently make your content less meaningful.