Watchface: Geneva

Note: I've removed this watchface from the app store, for a couple reasons.

After putting many hours into it over the last month, I've decided that the "tip jar" approach simply wasn't working. Despite positive feedback, essentially nobody was willing to donate. I developed this watchface primarily for my own use, but I found myself increasingly updating it based on the preferences of others, few of which were willing to donate anything to support the effort. So I plan on releasing a paid version, with a free trial. If people like the watchface they can buy it, if not they can move on. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, but if they are suggestions from people unwilling to spend a modest amount to purchase it, I have limited interest in putting in the time & effort.
This was actually three watchfaces in one. That was an interesting technical achievement—it required an organized modular design to the codebase. But it's kind of pointless. If people want to change the watchface they should use the normal system menu to change the watchface. One of those things that's obvious in hindsight. So I will "split out" Geneva into at least two watchfaces available on the CIQ store.

Regards,
–nonparametric

msquared2 over 3 years ago in reply to acousticbiker

Agreed. I really like where this watch face is going: a classy and authentic looking analog watch face that fully exploits the resolution and color depth of AMOLED display. Honestly, Garmin should be ashamed for selling the $1000 Epix *without* such a watch face.

I'd now love to see more 3-dimensional shadow "depth" added to the watch hands, for example see TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E4 they have some amazing looking watch face hands!!

acousticbiker over 3 years ago in reply to nonparametric

Awesome to see continued updates to what is already a great watchface!

I liked the sunrise/set arrow better when it was next to the time - curious why you moved it? I’m assuming there’s a reason since you seem to have a thoughtful purpose for all the details

Similarly, I’m curious about the choice to have the progress circles begin/end at bottom vs the top (I like the complete circles, by the way). Top seems a bit more intuitive to me because that’s also where a clock (and I think the Omega chronograph dials) starts/stops.

nonparametric over 3 years ago in reply to acousticbiker

The answer to that one is simple… When I added the progress ring to sunrise/sunset, the arrow no longer fit next to the time. My first preference would be to remove the progress ring—adding it “solved” a largely aesthetic problem but created a problem with function. Failing that, I like the arrangement of the arrow next to the sun icon.

As for why the progress rings start at the bottom… Clocks always start at 12 O’clock, but they also only move clockwise and have no semantic beginning or end. That model doesn’t really make much sense for quantities that vary between 0–100% and can increase or decrease. Datafields aren’t (necessarily) clocks and shouldn’t be bound to the same rules. I think a better mental model in most cases would be gauges, which often start at the bottom (think speedometers or pressure gauges) and also don’t form closed rings in order to better indicate the endpoints of the range.

Actually I think I just convinced myself to go back to open rings.

acousticbiker over 3 years ago in reply to nonparametric

Thanks for clarifying on both fronts. The gauge metaphor makes sense, though I do think the full circle still makes sense for a watchface (at least the chronograph version)

EDIT: Have you considered using the sunrise/sunset icons Garmin uses in stock watchfaces (little arrow above sun)? Seems like a reasonable alternative given your use of Garmin’s symbols for body battery, recovery time, etc

msquared2 over 3 years ago

I’m not shocked that you are unable to sustain multiple code updates per week, and respond to forum questions here, based on the demanding whims of a non tipping user base. For the record, I did make a contribution (and thank you for refunding that given the decision to pull this). And I *might* even be willing to pay for a new paid only version.

BUT … there are very VERY few people like me: the market for AMOLED specific commercial watch faces is just not going to “solve” this basic problem. There simply is not enough revenue potential to ever really make this “worthwhile”. Hence my suggestion of open sourcing the project. Anyway best wishes with your commercial re-launch.

nonparametric over 3 years ago in reply to msquared2

Yes, I think you're very right. Fortunately I don't need to make a living off of this. It's just a hobby that was heading in an unrewarding direction for me. If charging money for the watchface leads to people completely ignoring it, that's not the worst outcome. If I decide to turn the project open-source you will be the first to hear.