Instead of the feature selector popping up and blocking the avatar, it would be nice to have it side to side, or top to bottom and not close on selection but allow for tapping through the different options and see the differences.
I like this a lot, although the UI could be optimised it is relatively easy to understand, however it kinda bugs me that there isn't a way to represent different hair/skin colors (not your fault or anything, but it would be nice if I could create an avatar that looks like me :D). Perhaps hatching or just an outline instead of a fill could be used for that purpose.
The option to download the .svg would also be useful
"Accessories" (Eyewear, face mask, earphones) and "Others" (facial hair) are hidden behind the "+2" above the Outfits button.
Option replication:
Mouth - pane 1, bottom row, the left two mouths are identical.
Accessories - pane 1, bottom row, right two glasses are identical as well.
This isn't immediately obvious, and it seems a lot of other people have this issue -- some with removing an auto-generated face mask, me with removing the auto-generate facial hair -- as none of the other options produced anything close to the desired "no beard" option, and the +2 wasn't as apparent or obvious as it could be.
Additionally, why not just have those two options as regular buttons with the rest? When you've got 9 buttons and a not-very-obvious "hidden options" mini button, why not just have the hidden options be alongside the regular buttons?
Finally, for the face mask options - they remove any other "accessories" option, including eyewear -- if someone wore glasses and wished to have a face mask in their avatar, that option isn't available. Likewise, you can't have eyewear + earphones/"blushing"/bow tie (the latter of which doesn't seem to be connected to the other facial options at all).
(Oh, and the lack of representation for more feminine faces and facial features is atrocious. Ignoring that women make up ~50% of the population, they represent over 1/4 of the people in tech - and it's 2023. Come on.)
Some bizarre UI decisions. Why are the extra options hidden behind the +2? Why does the selector obscure the face? Why are the previews for features so tiny as to be useless?
Not GP, but I would drop the pagination in the pop-ups. Regular Scrolling, maybe even css snap-scroll, would be more convenient.
On mobile, some of the icons are too small to be legible (e.g. „mouth“).
Overall, nice work though! The resulting avatars look great!
The main thing is to make it modeless. When there's space, like on a large desktop window, put the selector alongside the preview. Then any change in selection should update the preview without additional clicks. Basically 1 click should change a feature and another click change it to something else.
If you used it for any length of time, these things should be self evident as annoyances to be streamlined. As an exercise, try every selection for every option while looking at the preview for each result.
Move the chooser off of the top of the avatar is step 1.
Also defaulting to a mask and then hiding the UI for removing it? Makes the first chooser look like it does absolutely nothing. As it stands, it looks like only the first three are actually different.
If the first thing you click on appears to do nothing, user hostility begins already. The first rule of UI is don’t piss the user off, because it’s much harder to interpret feedback from an angry user (it’s possible, but it takes a lot more skill and emotional maturity).
I would reduce the probability of the toothbrush mustache or its combinations with certain face types in the random generator. You start noticing the Hipster Hitlers if you keep clicking "random".
Why is there a toothbrush mustache even in there as an option? Like, even the most hipster or alternative people out there I've never seen people with one. I'm getting Hitler mustaches after every third click.
I agree. Even though OP is not an artist, I’m deeply offended that they did not bend over backwards to create a product that considers every permutation of every phenotype. I’m also morally obligated to reframe every misstep as intentionally malicious and bigoted.
I don’t care if 12 of the 32 hairstyles are clearly feminine, that number should be at least 16. And even then, as a closeted misandrist, I would find the remaining 16 masculine hairstyles to be extremely triggering.
In your hasty response, you failed to be an ally for the facially-divergent. Whether it be one eye or no eyes, these people need to be seen. And don’t even get me started on the default skin tone… Whyte? Really? It’s 2023.
You're clearly trolling, but talking about the empirical lack of inclusion when it comes to female aspects, is in no way connected to misandry, and you're just being deliberately obstinate and facetious in a transparent attempt to cause drama.
Not sure you should be the judge on what is "clearly famine" when you falsely equate being inclusive of women, as being related to misandry. Poor trolling attempt.
As for your fake "facially-divergent" comment, there is a way to go in terms of visibility of disabled people, which would include people with a variety of facial differences from the "norm" -- it's a shame you weren't serious, because you could've almost made a valid point there.
I agree with you, it's woke nonsense that an avatar generator should be expected to cover an edge case as niche as... feminine faces. What's next in this upside down world, notion styled furry avatars?
Agreed. If your "hands are tied" because you didn't create the artwork, clearly you didn't consider it worthwhile in your brief to begin with.
Presuming the artist is still around, one would imagine you're capable of commissioning them for a wider array of options. Women represent around half the people on the planet, yet seem to be more of an afterthought, or not a thought at all.
Even for men, the options are pretty "big and blocky" or go home.
As developer93 said, your respond was quite blasé, and absolutely feels exclusionary - the kind of "nothing I can do" attitude just puts across that you don't want to do anything about it, presumably because - given the apparent lack of forethought on including women in the design spec - you don't think it's a problem?
I managed to get this which is pretty female looking imo but yeah there is a bit issue of an issue when there isn't many femalish options: https://i.imgur.com/CWca05u.png
The sound is annoying and does not add much to selecting an item. All the features look small when selecting them, so hard to to see the differences until clicking. So trying out a bunch of different ones combined with the sound was irksome. I'm not sure how you test with it on, I turned off my speaker.
Since forever. The lack of "muted by default" behaviour is very frustrating. It's also implemented per-tab rather than per-domain. What the hell? I want all sound directed to /dev/null by default with the option for me to enable it. In 100% of instances I will know whether I want sound to play before the sound actually plays.
I've a feeling they can't do it because websites would complain, though. You can use all free software and other people will still find a way to control your computer.
Notion’s illustration style is the work of [Roman Muradov], and many of the avatars are the work of [Iris Chiang]. Roman doesn’t appreciate software like this that tries to reduce their artistry to a commodity. If you’re going to rip off the style, please do it with care: use feathered painterly strokes, not sharp vector edges. The avatars are drawn in Procreate, not Adobe Illustrator.
Just imagining an alternative way this conversation could've gone:
A: "Glad you were inspired by our illustrations! Please give credit to the artists that originally created them though. I also think you might be missing some of the painterly details that make the Notion style unique :)"
B: "This probably falls under fair use, but I agree it'd be nice to respect their artistry."
