Joppu - I apologize for taking over your thread. And I apologize for making you feel bad. I don't hate your GUI. I think it is an excellent GUI for a file manager type approach. There are definitely times when even Apple's flashiness gets in my way and makes things a little harder to do than it would be with a more textual interface. And, I love Apple's stuff. I'm a MacBook owner, and I think OS X is awesome. But still there are times I just want a list of the files - not previews, not coverflow, not thumbnails - just the name (with extension) of the file and some basic info about it - exactly what you did.
Even in the GUI I'm envisioning - and remember, I have no control over the Pandora. I'm not a programmer or a part of the Pandora team. All the stuff I've done are just Photoshop mockups of what I'd like to see - nothing more. But even in my thinking, there would need to be a file manager interface at some point. I just didn't make that first, because, to me as a designer, the flashy stuff is more fun to do. And since I'm just doing this for fun, that's what I did.
So, again, I do not hate your design. I'm very sorry for hijacking your thread. And I hope you don't stop designing stuff. Art is supposed to be fun, and it doesn't matter if other people like it or not - if its something you saw in your head and got out into the real world - that's a good thing.
That being said, you mentioned that you felt like no one was giving you constructive criticism, so I will try to do that.
One thing that I try to do as a designer (it's what I do professionally - mostly print media) is consider my audience. Who is going to be looking at what I'm making. I could have the same message "Drink more Slurm Cola" and I would make the ad differently if I thought teenage boys were looking at the ad than I would if I though post menapausal women were going to look at it. Or if my magazine were targeted to IT professionals, it would look different than if it were targeted to hard core video gamers - even though those two groups overlap. It's a matter of context in that situation. But enough "more instance"es.
In this thread, your audience is gamers - particularly handheld gamers. Is the Pandora more than a gaming system? Heck yeah it is! But look where this forum is hosted - a gaming website. What separates the Pandora from the rest of the world of PMPs, UMPCs, MIDs, and WXYZs is that the Pandora is a handheld computer *with gaming controls built in*. Dual analog sticks are not going to come in too handy doing anything other than gaming. I'm sorry, but I don't need shoulder buttons to make a spreadsheet. Get my point?
When you consider that this is uniquely a gaming device - you think about the gaming culture. What drives it? What makes it tick? What excites its fan base? Well - it's not lines of text. I'm not trying to be mean in saying that. Think about it - they are called "VIDEO games". It's all about the visual. Why did the NES revive the console market? Was it because the world was thirsty for a new plumbing-based hero? No. It was because the 8-bit graphics of the NES/Famicom *KICKED ATARI'S ASS*! Graphics have always driven the video game market. Gaming is why we have such incredible graphic capabilities on our PCs. I mean, without the Crysis's of the world to push technology forward, we'd probably still be typing on our 16 color EGA monitors. You really don't need much more for emails, documents, spreadsheets, and chat.
So gamers like flashy graphics. That's the first thing.
Number two - I look at the competition. My first stab at the GUI was basically taking two systems I already own - a Sony PSP and a Nokia N800 - and combining their GUIs. The side-scrolling icons came from the PSP, and the right column of options from the N800. There are many reasons to look at the competition. 1. They want the same thing as you want - so what they do to try to get it might be something you want to try. 2. They already did a lot of work on what they've got - why reinvent the wheel? I'm not saying steal their stuff - or make another ____ clone - but there are certain things that just make sense, and if what they do works, there might just be something to it. Think about it - they have billions of dollars to spend on research & development , by simply releasing their finished product, we have access to the results of thousands of manhours of research! 3. It gives you an idea of what your audience expects. That goes back to my first point - consider your audience. There's a very good chance your competition already has.
So - second thing - the PSP, the N800, the Eee PC - they all have iconic based GUIs with little or no text. And particularly the PSP, but also the N800, they are flashy in their presentation... There might be something to that.
And finally - as another thread is asking - what is the Pandora's "WOW" factor? We can't really show off the full potential of the hardware with a game - not right now. This is simply because there are no (zero) games that have been written to natively run on the Pandora. There *will be* (hopefully!) - but at first, 99.9% of the games are going to run on emulators, or be ports from lesser systems. So, none of the games we have will be pushing the limits of the hardware. To make up for this, I would like to see, (and it's just my opinion), the GUI show off the hardware. I'm not saying that the CPUs should be spiking just to run the OS! But it should display some of the possibilites of the Pandora.
So you think about things like - hey, this is a touch screen device - how can we use that? It's a high resolution screen - what can we do with all that "real estate"? It's got WiFi - what does that add to the GUI? It has a some hard core graphics capabilities - why not use some shading and movement in the OS?
Going back to looking at competitors - Look at desktop operating systems - Mac OS X, of course, is known for being flashy and graphics driven. The "Coverflow" thing, and the dock, and the QuickLook... Using movement, scaling, shading, reflections - all to emphasize your focus. The Dock icons get Bigger as you mouse over them to draw attention to what you are actually about to click on. (it also makes it easier to click on it when it is bigger.) Windows Vista (sucks, but) was focused on adding flash and pizazz to Windows XP. The "Aero" interface. I don't personally like it - but it was a focus of Microsoft to make Windows *LOOK* better - even if it didn't work. And even the beloved Linux has been seeing a lot of eyecandy thrown its way lately - the Compriz stuff is awesome - KDE 4.0 looks incredible - 3D desktop effects, jiggily windows, spinning cubes a'plenty! Why in the world do you need a 3D way of switching virtual desktops? You don't! But it looks cool as hell! And, you know what? That simple graphics trick got a lot of people interested in Linux that would have otherwise never even looked at it.
So, hopefully this came across as helpful and not hurtful - as that was my intention, to help. Think about your audience, consider the competition, and think about your message. My message in my GUI was two fold - #1 - this is a uber cool gaming rig that is capable of some kick ass graphics and effects. #2 - this is *MUCH* more than a gaming rig it's a full fledged computer in your pocket - it can tell you the weather, keep you up-to-date on the latest news, surf the web, help you get your taxes done, and so much more, and look damn good doing it.
I sincerely hope that helps you understand why some people may be more attracted to something graphical rather than text driven. And I hope you keep working your craft. You learn a lot more from disappointment than you do from success - and eventually those lessons lead to success. So don't give up!
". Nice, constructive criticism. I'll make another better concept with tabs (as it seems all of you love them so much). I don't get it. Why does everyone want some kind of dumbed-down UI? I'd rather make my own shortcuts and folders the way I want.
