Behind the scenes of Circle app design
discovercircle.comAs a designer, I found the content well presented but kind of fluffy.
Design is about understanding the users and the experience you're trying to create. How long it took, colors chosen and testing w/ real content are mainly just technical details.
I would have loved to hear about the process of breaking down how Circle would improve the lives of your users and the design thinking around that.
Or even why the "simplistic circle" concept made the most sense for the problem you're solving, outside of the aesthetic/branding appeal.
It might have made a good sales pitch for your product as well.
The video is kind of odd, Seems like an excuse to get some crazy camera shots of the musicians. Doesn't really help sell the app at all, I would much rather have watched a shorter, more to the point promo video.
Other than that, the app looks nice!
Have to agree...the video is, frankly, terrible in terms of product promotion. It actually made me lose interest in the app because it seemed to indicate there was not much to be excited about in the app, since so little functionality was shown.
Cut it down, focus on why we should care about yet another social app.
I actually really liked the video! I think it really helped sell the story and drama of the app. I know that a lot of videos focus on the features of a particular app, but I think this video did a pretty good job of selling the benefits of the app - all while being consistent with the different branding elements.
A video doesn't have to be a features list. It has to tell a story.
(And it doesn't hurt that I really do like The Piano Guys!)
I agree.
The video made me install the app on my Iphone. And I like your app represented on white iphone better than on black (as seen on your landing page)
But I'm not a designer so I didn't have any expectations from article or video. It was just fun and nice teaser for app for me.
I couldn't even tell if the video was meant to be serious, and for a second made me think the whole app was a ruse. Frankly, I'm still bewildered by what I saw.
It looked pretty good until the decision making process of colour choice-blue or orange. I don't understand the rationale. So what if orange is a warm colour. I was expecting a better argument on colour choice. And why just two choices? Is there a more scientific approach to colour choice (ie colour wheel) or is it simply designer or customer choice?
I think the tone of the article was to be more light hearted, rather than objective and factual. The stock photo laden video really doubles down on that gambit.
I think a laid back attitude is novel, and has a lot of power. It's made me associate Circle as a fun startup, which might have been the whole point of the article - a recruiting and promotional tool - in the first place.
Actually it is a very debated argument. Most of the choices about colours are about brand/category recognition.
In my experience designers (and is the role I sometimes have) must understand that visual appearance is nothing if not considered in its context. A blue logo is obviously more obvious (no pun intended) and not revolutionary, but is able to vector the category of the much more fast than an orange one. What does an orange circle on an app logo mean? A blue one is more clearly inserted in the right category.
But I see some more interesting issuess: what does that greenish/blue look that social networks acquired after Facebook and Aqua (oh yeah, that aqua UI) really mean? That green/blue is considered in semiology the color of the death and dead bodies[1]. Do you want YOUR logo to pass THAT semiotic message?
[1]: I have no citations here, I couldn't find one. So take my words as unreliable.
As a Texan and alumni of the University of Texas, I also don't understand his comment about orange not being popular in Texas considering it is UT's school color.
Indeed. Obviously the orange looks way better than the blue, though the "orange peel" texture on it might be a bit too high-contrast.
The persentation's design looks nice and clean to me. However, the icon looks kind of dull. I can't see it reaching out to me or many others as an entity isolated from its context, nothing urges me to click on it to find out more if I were to notice it while on a smartphone.
I think the logo has too much useless eye candy going on. You could allocate the resources of attention that are now going to multiple gradients to something which would tell more about its actual function. Something to indicate the fact that its you and your phone within the circle, etc.
That might spark an inkling of interest in more people: In the middle of what circle? What does the circle indicate then? Could me having this circle around be a viable thing?
Also, the checks and crosses beside the icons are a bit messed up logically. Why does 'Blue is a cool color of the sky, ocean, sleep' have a cross next to it?
The references to personal opinions feel out of place in the list, although in general I can see the value in making the product's creators closer to the reader, it's just not the right place for that in my opinion. The persnal preferences surely consist of a logic that you can put your finger on. Add more actual points there instead, that would be much more informative to everyone.
I think the level of eye candy in an icon should match the operating system around it. iOS is not as simplistic as Metro and full of these gradients. Skype has removed all the gradients in their iOS app recently and it looks distractingly out of place now. The Circle icon, however, would look nice between Apple's stock apps.
Great app design, and awesome behind the scenes page! Kudos
"At this point it should be fair to come out: I’m maybe the last designer using operating system made by Microsoft and all these screens were made on Windows® 7. At least they weren't made in Corel."
what's the point of that information?
Here in Valley: Designer = Mac User
It's a shame such a great presentation is ruined by the usage of "Hot Chicks".
It wouldn't have cost them anything to just say "models" instead of "models and hot chicks?"
And just like that, my interest in the app is gone.
Hi Idan, I made that and I really apologize for that! I was trying to use slang words and im not native in english. I didnt mean any disrespect to women, was just describing typical designers cliche...
I don't doubt it was done with the best of intentions, but this is exactly the sort of thing which makes women feel unwanted in our industry—thoughtless reduction of girls to sex objects.
Put your money (well, time) where your mouth is—go change the text! A minimal change makes all the difference:
"…when you insert pics of models, so here…" "Replace all pictures of models with a photo of your…"
Fixed.
No, it isn't. "Nice girls"?
Models are attractive people. The terms works for both sexes. Ask yourself why there has to be any reference at all to the fact that the pictures are of females. Your placeholder image leaves little doubt about that fact.
I'm trying to get an idea across to you: it isn't okay to use women as sex objects in public conversation like your site. It isn't okay to single women out, even as "nice girls." Both your image and your text make it about their sex and sexuality. Use whatever images you like on your own computer, but when it comes time to share with the internet, have some tact. Lie a little and choose something less offensive when sharing a story like this. A quick flickr search found the following pictures of attractive, presentable women:
* http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamespicsatflickr/3531188607/ * http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamespicsatflickr/4327536639/ * http://www.flickr.com/photos/chamberimages/4489201274/
Without any emphasis on women in your text, you'd still have a great contrast to the photo of your cofounder with any of these images, with none of the sexual overtones.
I wouldn't take the time to respond if I didn't care—you have some truly great design work that deserves to be shared. I'm trying to help you see the parts of it which are unacceptable, so you know not to make the same mistake next time.
And for now, seriously, just remove "nice girls". It's awkward English, regardless.
"Nice girls" sticks out like a sore thumb, as if it had been thrown in to replace "hot chicks" so no one would be offended.
Oh, look! That's exactly what happened. I agree: inappropriate.
And before we get into any sort of argument of misogyny and what is or is not acceptable, I'd point out that there's good advice here: Anything taking away from your point is doing you a disservice. Stick to discussing good design choices, or the message will get lost in the din.
Man, sorry, I give up.
Idan's talking about this still being up:
"All concepts and screens looks great when you insert pics of models [strike]& nice girls[/strike], so here comes a part of my secret sauce:"
There may be others I didn't catch. Thanks for fixing some of it, it stops the copy from distracting from the content.
Don't give up, don't be sorry—just fix it!
Bonus: you learned something about writing copy for startups today. Every failure is an opportunity for a successful outcome.
It's OK to show some personality. It's even OK to offend some people sometimes.
Correction: he learned something about writing copy for idan today.
No, Idan's point was incredibly valid and I'm glad that the creator cared enough to make efforts to fix it.
I literally loved the line 'lie a little'.
The guy decided not to lie and was smashed. Welcome to the 21st century western civilization. Lie a little and you'll be okay.
Thank you. Before someone chimes in calling you a PC prick, it should be pointed out that sexism concerns aside, using "nice girls" is redundant and a waste of copy. Hopefully that appeals to the naysayers practical sense.
Yeah, I was put off by "nice girls". first of all, they're "women". Second, yeah....just "models" will do fine. "Models" are attractive to any gender..."nice girls" caters to a male audience. Which I guess is the right assumption, and will continue to be, sadly.
Referencing "models" is weird to me to start. Now I'm thinking of a designer who has a bunch of "hot chicks" directories on his computer. The intention should be that "high quality photography" will make most designs look a lot better, not the "high quality" of the looks of the human subject, right? When you make it about "models", you've made it content-specific, and this is compounded by making it gender-specific with "hot/nice girls". How about:
Any design mock-ups look fantastic with high quality stock art, but can it pass the Trial by Co-Founder™? Replace your professionally photographed imagery with a random photo of your co-founder and see if the design still "works".
You could also go for something like "sexy boys and hot girls". Models on it's own works perfectly fine though.
I was expecting to see sketches and scribbles about the product. I guess this belongs to the "we skip product and just push pixels" school of design.
It's useful, not "usefull"
Blue icon for a social network… in 2012?
really, REALLY?
Great Application Design