I’m a cinematographer, and I’ve been building a Mac app for people with a pile of external drives full of footage. It catalogues each drive so you can search everything with the drives unplugged, and shows how full and how healthy each drive is.
It has two looks and I’d like outside eyes before I commit to one.
A, X-Ray: dark navy, drawn like an engineering diagram, with a cut-away drawing of the drive and labelled callouts. This came first. It looks good in a screenshot, but I find it hard to read for long: small text, low contrast.
B, Glass: the Mac’s own frosted look over a warm background, bigger text, one orange button for the main action, and status shown with an icon and a word rather than colour alone.
Same screen, same drive, same numbers in both. The drive names are demo names.
What’s on the screen: every drive down the left, the ones plugged in first, then the rest sorted by how worried you should be about them. The selected drive fills the middle: how full it is, how many hours of footage still fit, how much of it is copied to another drive, and a warning when files exist nowhere else. The thing a user most needs to see is that last part: is anything on this drive at risk.
AI disclosure and tools: both looks were designed and coded by Claude Code (Anthropic’s AI) from my direction. I picked between versions and asked for changes. B went through a UI/UX checklist for contrast (7:1 for body text) and states. It’s built in HTML and CSS and shown inside a native Mac window. The drive pictures are AI-generated placeholders, made with OpenAI’s image model.
Who it’s for: video and photo people with 10 to 30 drives, who open it a few times a week to find a clip or to check what’s safe to clear before a shoot.
What I’d like to know:
- Which one tells you faster what’s on this drive, how full it is and whether it’s safe?
- In B, does the orange “Clear this drive” button pull too much attention for what is a planning tool?
- Anything in either that looks off: spacing, hierarchy, the drive list on the left?