I’m so sick of tech illiteracy and ignorance at the heart of government. It makes no odds who’s in charge. All politicians run around screaming “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” to, ironically, satisfy perennially online older people talking bollocks on Facebook and Mumsnet.

That’s not to say there aren’t problems when it comes to tech and children. The internet in particular presents major challenges. But shielding kids from so much and creating a cliff-edge at 18 won’t help. Nor will removing mobiles fix attention issues or deal with bullying.

As per the BBC, the latest wheeze in England is to ban kids at school in England from even having a phone in their possession. But so much of modern life requires a smartphone. What are children who use one for access to public transport supposed to do?

There are other practical reasons to have a device too. My youngling’s school had to evacuate after a major gas leak. Kids having phones helped coordinate with parents rather than the school being swamped with such efforts. The government would suggest you buy a brick phone, but that adds cost and assumes people have the means. It adds to e-waste. It’s another thing to take care of.

Access to phones “risks pulling children away from their learning and from each other”, the government said. How? If there’s an on-campus usage ban, which most schools already implement, how are children being pulled away from learning? One response was that kids are “still TikToking in the toilets”, to which I’d say citation required. And kids still need a device anyway, because homework and other communications now come via apps. Parents therefore often provide kids with one piece of tech that can do everything. Such efforts will now be undermined.

I fear a slippery slope. Sooner or later, the UK government will push for a full ban on smartphones for the under-18s. Then everyone will act all shocked when there are problems with buses and trains, a bunch of teachers start having issues with the physical searches that are being mooted, and kids end up in a worse spot than they were before.

If we really do want to think of the children, how about choosing education over eradication when it comes to technology?

Spoiler: no.

Slightly longer version…

I like Lego, despite long having been a fully grown adult human. I’m now ‘don’t give a flying fuck about what other people think about what I enjoy’ years old. If people sneer that I like faffing about with plastic bricks and piecing together buildings, cars and miniature blocky takes on characters from Pixar movies, I don’t care.

What I do find strange, though, is a kind of ongoing grumble about how Lego was always better in the old days. Around the time I was updating my best upcoming Lego sets 2026 roundup for Stuff, I spotted a Bluesky post from someone torn about how Lego is a great antithesis for kids on screen and helps people be creative, yet generates “an absolute shit-ton of unnecessary plastic”. That inevitably led to people complaining that Lego isn’t creative anymore, because people just buy massive and expensive display sets rather than huge boxes of bricks.

I’m (fortunately) not old enough to remember the dawn of Lego, but I do have fond memories of growing up with it during the 1980s. And here’s the thing: I and most other people I knew started with sets for building specific things, rather than massive piles of bricks. But I’d often dismantle my sets and make whatever I fancied with the pile of plastic rubble I’d made. And that’s pretty much the case today. It’s just bollocks to argue that no one builds creatively with Lego anymore. My kid did for years. Plenty of adults do too, as anyone who’s ever visited a Lego show will know.

Sure, there’s a tendency towards display sets when people age. But that’s also… OK? I don’t think it’s any worse to spend £100 on a dust catcher for a shelf that you put together yourself rather than a roughly equivalent pre-made ornament. Moreover, that Lego is still Lego. It will last for decades and – if the current owner feels like it – can at any time be turned into something new. (And if your response to that is something something specialist parts, maybe take a look at how the inventive folks at Lego reuse even the most seemingly specific of parts.)

That’s not to say Lego (the brand) is perfect. Nor is Lego the toy. But I do suspect an awful lot of adults banging on about how Lego isn’t as good as it was back in their day are parping their nostalgia horn rather than being objective about how a toy is used by the bulk of its target market and the sheer quality and range of sets available today. 

This week, the BBC reported that MPs had rejected calls for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in the UK. Immediately, opposition parties slammed the government, including the Liberal Democrats, seemingly forgetting what the first word in their party’s name actually means.

I’m aware I’m in the minority when it comes to opinions about kids using tech. But, in part, that comes from being immersed in the industry and knowing what tools are available, along with a stark awareness of the slippery slope that we appear to be heading towards with age gating. Also, many people outside of the industry can spot the inconsistencies and issues with legislation too, even if, apparently, many politicians and perennially online adults cannot.

It’s why I recently wrote about why school smartphone bans are a bad idea, ended up on BBC News saying much the same (with my interview being cut to approx. 27 nanoseconds as a counterpoint to a much longer comment by a headteacher, natch) and then grumbled at length about the social media element on Bluesky.

Too many people are again ignoring the evidence around them. Australia has already shown that blanket bans don’t work. In fact, they don’t even exist. The country had a nightmare defining what is and isn’t social media. And for those things that fell into the prior camp, legislation cut off homebound children from their entire social circles.

But still people argue that something must be done. And… on that, at least, I do agree. Platform owners need to do more to surface controls adults can use to help best guide their kids. Social media companies and video platforms need to recognise the harms they can cause. But framing all this through “think of the children” does not help. We need to explore wider harms social media can bring and deal with them, not create a cliff edge at 16 or 18 (the latter being when people can vote), or mark one service as bad and ignore loads of others.

On the latest row, the Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, Munira Wilson, ”accused the government of failing to grasp the issue”. But I’d say that, for once, the government did grasp the issue, in understanding that more thought needs to go into the legislation before it becomes law. Even so, Labour MPs lined up to criticise their own party’s stance. For example, Sadik Al-Hassan said: “Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked.”

I’m so, so tired of this. When did a generation that grew up with technology all around them decide to abdicate parenting responsibilities to the state? It boggles the mind. But for those of us asking for more nuance, it feels like trying to hold back the tide. To say things are against us is putting it mildly.

It’s easy to see why. Teachers, media and perennially online adults constantly flood the internet and TV with SKY IS FALLING commentary and contrary viewpoints barely get a mention. My own MP (Lib Dem) has taken to posting on Facebook about how awful the Labour Party is for pausing a ban that is deeply flawed.

So, yes, something needs to be done. Social media is causing problems. Kids should be protected. But what we need is more education (for children and adults), a better understanding of available tools, along with extra – and better – regulation. What we don’t need is to start stomping around and banning semi-random chunks of the internet, only to cause more problems than end up getting solved.

Very long-time readers of this blog may remember my first encounter with vestibular triggers in software. OS X Lion had full-screen animations, and they made me sick. Alas, I was no John Gruber or Jason Snell. I received a few emails and notes of concern, but the post got no real traction. 18 months later, I wrote about iOS 7 making some users sick – but that was for The Guardian. And that one made a difference, in every sense.

The story spread, but also – and far more importantly – Apple started listening. I and others sent over recommendations. Changes were made. iOS 7 became usable again for millions of people. But one thing has never changed: this aspect of accessibility has apparently never become a foundational part of Apple development, and is instead reactive.

What this means for me is trying to catch the worst vestibular triggers that occur during the summer betas, and hoping they’ll get fixed. Or after September, begging Apple to fix those that remain. Or when that doesn’t happen, trying to remember the triggers that still exist and avoiding related pieces of the operating system entirely. (For example, in Control Centre, tap on Focus and the menu blasts outwards. For you, that may look nice. For me, it’s the fast train to dizzy central.)

Over on Mastodon, Federico Viticci has been writing a lot about iOS and iPadOS. I’m sure you’re familiar with him; if not, I’d say he’s one of the foremost iOS and iPadOS experts in the entire world. He digs deep every single year, writing book-sized reviews on the new systems as they appear. The sheer effort, enthusiasm and sense of detail is really quite something.

He and I appear to be in very different spaces this year, though, with my position on Liquid Glass being significantly more negative. I see gloss – a pretty tech demo that also serves to significantly erode usability and legibility. But because Apple doesn’t bake in vestibular accessibility at a foundational level, the changes being made in Liquid Glass also impact accessibility.

In the Mastodon thread, Viticci noted that iOS 26 now collapses toolbars and it takes an extra tap to perform some actions. He asks: “Is that…better? The animations are gorgeous, sure. But does it actually work better?” To which I’d say: no. Twice.

From a usability standpoint, this is a step back. It’s not simplifying UI, but hiding it. From an accessibility standpoint, the revision is also a problem.

The guidance I – and, I’m sure, others – have provided multiple times to Apple is that motion that cannot be controlled by the user should ideally be removed; which, in reality, has meant being replaced by a crossfade – good enough for most users with vestibular issues. You’ll see this if you activate Reduce Motion on your iPhone. The 3D zoom ‘blast’ when opening folders will be gone. As will other animations, such as when you move through menu hierarchies. (At least in software that doesn’t use its own proprietary animations that ignore Reduce Motion, such as RSS client Reeder.)

What people often don’t realise is that even small/fast pop-out menu animations can be enough to ‘blast’ someone to the point they can be made dizzy. Additionally, transforming static to animated UI via refraction is a potential trigger. (For example, when playback controls start animating because the content beneath them is being refracted.) Both of those things are strewn throughout all of Apple’s upcoming operating system revisions. Beyond that, there are bigger issues too, such as the current iPadOS 26 dev beta windowing having zooming/flyout animations when you tap on the ‘desktop’. If I accidentally watch that, I’m dizzy for minutes. Other people have it much worse than I do.

Online, I tend to get one of three responses to this kind of feedback. The first is from people who don’t believe me, on the basis that I write about Apple kit and also play video games. But vestibular conditions are weird and can be quite specific. I can safely ride rollercoasters, if I’m careful. I can play some games, notably when I’m in control and can anticipate upcoming camera movement. But when watching someone else play or using a UI that blasts animations in front of my face, I can be left uncomfortable for hours.

The second is the people who say “yeah, but that’s what betas are for”, which misses the point. As noted earlier, it’s not like Apple is unaware of motion problems. And, to be fair, the iOS team in particular has been responsive to requests I’ve made. I’d say, roughly, the order then goes iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS, with the last of those systems being very poor in terms of making things more usable in this space. More broadly, even though Apple is better than rivals when it comes to this area of accessibility, fixes are not proactive and ensured by default – Apple is too often reactionary, in response to feedback. And that’s a problem.

The third type of response? Those come from people like me. People who suffer from this weird condition and just want to use their devices without fear. It’s absurd using an iPad and having to remember to shut your eyes during every transition, just in case, as I once had to. It’s ridiculous to be scared of installing a new operating system, in case random animations haven’t been dealt with. So big or small, animations should be stilled from day one if a user has Reduce Motion turned on. This should be foundational. It shouldn’t even require feedback. But if that feedback is provided, that is absolutely what should ship come September. Let’s see if that will be the case this year.

I have issues with Apple’s current design trajectory. There’s a lot of gloss – style over substance – with Liquid Glass. While I appreciate some refinements, like the quiet exit of the Home indicator, the more I use macOS 26 and iPadOS 26, the more I question where Apple’s heading.

Historically, Apple has been opinionated and confident in its graphic design. More often than not, it’s also made good decisions. There are exceptions, but the Mac survived and later thrived by marrying beauty and usability. Similarly, the iPhone would never have become a giant in mobile computing if iOS hadn’t looked great and been easy to use. Today, though, Apple too often feels lost when it comes to design.

This sense of unease can be shown by focusing on one key component: the menu bar. This element has been a vital part of the Mac since the platform’s earliest days, helping users quickly and efficiently access commands and controls.

In the first macOS 26 dev beta, Apple removed the menu bar background entirely. Menu bar text and icons suddenly floated above whatever was behind them, dramatically reducing legibility – something that plagues Apple design right now, due to Apple’s obsession with Liquid Glass. Using Reduce Transparency brought the background back, but no one should be reliant on accessibility settings for basic legibility.

In beta 2, Apple added an option to restore the menu bar background. Which is good. Except it also makes me question Apple’s confidence in its design work. When Apple starts hedging its bets, it signals that it knows something is wrong, but lacks the conviction to course-correct. Or perhaps such settings are a means to temporarily shut people up, while default choices reveal the true intent and direction of travel.

On iPad, things are even worse. I’m a fan of the new windowing system, but the menu bar implementation is dreadful. The problem isn’t its auto-hide behaviour – the Mac has had something similar (although off by default) since 2015. Again, the issue is that Apple is so enamoured with transparency that it’s sacrificing visual clarity.

Unfortunately, the ‘fix’ on iPad isn’t yet anywhere near as full as the Mac one. In beta 1, a two-up window view could see menu bar text vanish entirely. In beta 2, Apple added a subtle gradient, which barely helps. Honestly, this is embarrassing – the sort of thing a design student wouldn’t hand in as part of a project. A menu bar coming to iPad is great, but not if you can’t read its text.

I spent five minutes mocking up alternatives, one with a frosted glass effect and the other with a solid background. I’m very aware that they are far from perfect, and one commenter rightly suggested iPadOS would prefer a rounded rectangle menu bar background, like the Dock. But they still offer more clarity than Apple’s proposal. And that’s a problem, because basic foundational graphic design should be the starting point for operating systems many millions of people use every day. Design that lacks legibility shouldn’t make it off of the drawing board, let alone into a beta.

Fortunately, it’s still June. These operating systems won’t ship until September. There’s still time to fix all this. But Apple’s timid iPad tweak doesn’t suggest an eagerness to improve. If anything, it suggests a design team wondering: what’s the bare minimum we can get away with to quiet the complaints?