here's a two dimensional interface where you can select each individual person and cycle through their jazz or you can choose your jazz and cycle through the people. kinda like a slideshow
this one is just for fears and you can pick a number on the anatomical diagram or cycle through once a person has been chosen.
7 comments:
The second interface seems to me to be more appealing. I think it's really interesting that there's like a peronified composition that is created.
Layout 1 The menu at the bottom is a nice touch. I think the simplicity of this design is really working. I'm assuming the pigeon is one of your photos, and everyones' would be the background as well. Where does menu take you if everyones' photos are at the bottom?
Layout 2 Your first layout would be my choice. Though I'm not sure if this layout is part of the first? Using an anatomical diagram is interesting but might be difficult to figure out. I tried that myself (not on a diagram like that though) and couldn't decide what part of the diagram I wanted fears or hates to belong. Unless it is completely arbitrary. I don't think the yellow gradient is really helping your background image. Plus, just having next and back cuts down on the users ability to navigate. The have to follow those buttons rather than making their own choices.
Hey Andrew,
I like the first interface a lot in that you have spaces for all the students clearly displayed along the bottom edge at all times, but they don't interfere with the image in the background. This makes it really easy to select your student and then focus on their picture, instead of being distracted by the interface.
I like the graphic look of the second interface a lot. My only question is how would people know to click on the individual numbers since they are so well integrated into the diagram?
I REALLY like your first layout. Very sophisticated in its simple navigation and the large photos allow the user to focus on the content.
The second layouts navigation is too well integreated into the design to be understandable for the user.
andrew.
although i think that both designs have interseting aspects, I feel the first is easiest to implement and has the most to build off of as an inerface. I feel like it would be very easy to incorporate aspects of the second idea into the first interface...both are very reliant on large photographic backgrounds.
In the case of the skeleton idea, you may also work with the type a bit more as well...right now it is overwhelming.
in terms of place to inspire more thought on either design....
collage (i have mentioned o several people) might allow you to add more layers of information easily without losing the large photographic background.
http://www.davebarnes.com/
or
http://www.cn-w.de/
the good news is the majority of the designs in your group utilyze similar elements ... with very different results.
the second site might be a really interesting place for you to start to refine your group designs.
Layout 1 These are both very different, and I kind of like them both, so good job. I really like the simplicity of this one, but I think just a few more design touches will add to it. I don't think the word "menu" is necessary unless its a button, but it will be cool for the small pictures to get bigger as you mouse over them. I think another category for portrait and info would round it off nicely.
Layout 2 I really like the anatomy idea because I've been thinking of doing something like that for awhile, but it will be hard to pinpoint locations for fears. We could always be humorous about it though like "your soul is in your femur." Or maybe just do the skull since fear is more a mind thing. We could then even carry it over to love and a heart if we wanted to. Navigation between people needs some oumph though.
Layout 1 Between the two I like this one better. It seems clean and easy to use, and I like how you can browse by person or by category.
Layout 2 This one is really cool looking, but from looking at it I can't figure out how to navigate it. If you hadn't said something about it I'd have missed the numbers.
Post a Comment