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 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?
Thanks for your honest feedback!
Could you don't mind giving some thoughts on improving the overall UI?