One cannot tell without labels, exactly what's proposed. While it reads artistically pleasing as a 2-D graphic, it will be extremely different when it becomes plants with their third dimension. If it were various colored gravels, it would transfer as a 2-D design with a modern vibe. (Not sure how likable an environment it would be.) If it were various low groundcovers & lawn, it might look fine, though be difficult to maintain. If the plants have much height at all, I see problems looming. There could be some very odd pointy parts showing up. To me, it looks like it might make an acceptable oil painting, but it does not look like it would make a good landscape. But then, that depends on one's goals. You've done a good job in previous posts of illustrating from the perspective viewpoint. Can you display this plan that way so it'd be easier to understand?

Of course I could but my problem is that while I like the layout and the idea I have no clue what pants to use. Close to the fence it could be something higher, toward the center and near the patio it must be ground cover.

The colors we are seeing in the picture were use just for illustrating the contrast but the right material or ground cover still have to be chosen.

For instance one idea would be to create a Japanese garden like area where the blue central area is.

The circular path can be wood, gravel again or slabs (or slabs alternating with gravel)

An interesting geometric layout but far too busy and formal in such a small yard for me. If using plant material it will take a lot of work to maintain the design

It will I can simplify by eliminating the top side corner circles and use grass and mulch only. the blue patch could be water

I agree with dowlingram -- too busy for the small yard. I don't get the incorporation of the circular path (other than it is a way to integrate a "graphic" component for interest.) But it is physically unnecessary and consumes a significant portion of space that would serve better as planting. I can't see a practical way that the two wedges (where planting shapes overlap) will work out unless the plants were all the same height ... a low height. It would be as if an oil painting were laid onto the yard. (... still be a chore to keep it maintained. ) If more paving is needed, the grey shape that extends the patio makes sense to me (except for the big bite taken out of it by the blue shape.)

If plants have any height, it's not practical to maintain them in sharp, thin edged wedges (the brown shape.)

I would work on simplifying and taking into account plant limitations. How simple ... an example:

That circular path you see there is a path you can take to see the entire garden

I might add the white dotted path shown below and maybe one more along the line that leads to the bush in the top right corner

The yard is smalI. I don't see the need for a path to take one to see the garden when it is pretty much all right in front of one's face from the patio area. It seems like an unnecessary extra to me.

Yes I heard it from two sources (you are one of them) . Yet I am not very happy with that design you are suggesting, that semi circular extension of the patio looks non functional there ....in my view

semi-circular extension of patio is an element I took from your plan. I don't know what it is, but it only made sense to me if it was an extension of paving. I'm not suggesting you add paving you don't need. (If the grey semi-circle in your plan represents gravel, that is just a softer form of paving.) You are the one deciding what it is and where it is. I'm just trying to make guesses that keep up with you.

Mowed grass is the de facto path for areas that are accessed infrequently. There are a few (very few) groundcovers that might stand up to fairly infrequent use if grass is not desired. But part of the equation depends on cultural conditions present: light/moisture/soil, etc. For areas that need frequent access, some kind of non-plant material (paving) must be used.

You could say you're "not happy" with something. But if you don't say exactly WHY, then it's impossible to help work toward overcoming the objections.

As I mentioned at the outset, it was difficult to interpret the plan because it is not spelled out what things are. One cannot get sense of how elements are, or should, fit together. It would be helpful to label anything that is not plants, even if it is very generic. Whatever shape represents a plant material, assign a height value to it (height when it is mature.) I suggest using a scheme where mowed grass is +0 and all other plants are +whatever-their-height-in-feet-is. If we knew this, the intent and direction of the plan might be easier to figure out.

I already have a patio that is boring ...I need to add rhythm color and shape to a backyard that is flat and I need to diminish the grass mowing. Adding more paving without a real idea is going to be even more boring. The paved circle had some sense in the initial design, it was somehow supporting it.. Having it there without the other elements made me unhappy with the look and the purpose

The two functional areas are defined (garden =brown) , the main garden is where the circles madness is and then we have that narrow strip to the left of the patio(east of the picture)

The trees are all I have positioned as they are in the picture. Everything else is open to suggestions

Your purpose seems simple .... reduce lawn and add interest. Sometimes it's easier to think through if the cart does not get before the horse, so let's back up a bit.

Determine if you need additional paving (beyond the existing patio) and why you need it. For the sake of simplifying the process, let's forget about any planting in the meanwhile, and just focus on paving. The planting will be subordinate to it and is able to comply with any scheme. That you think the patio to be "boring," is it because of it being a simple rectangle? How is it in terms of functionality?

You do not say specifically but I perceive your not being fond of mowed lawn. Is that correct? The yard is small enough that mowed lawn could be done away with entirely in favor of other plantings. However, this does not necessarily mean you will be getting out of lawn maintenance. In fact, for a while, until you learn to manage plantings well, it could become worse. (I don't know what your plant maintenance experience is.)

-the only reason why I would add more paving is to reduce the lawn but I won't do it if the paved area has no functionality

-the patio is functional, no question about it...but I have bricks on the house walls (exterior) and bricks on the patio ..it is just way too much brick like feeling in that area :-)

-to be honest with you that lawn is a mess...it is not flat, lots of dandelion and other crap that is growing there ..I am sick of fighting that war + cutting the grass + having to use an air blower to clean the patio because grass clippings get on the patio

I think the design is very artistic & can be quite pleasing. You might consider Unilock Black Granite edging.

Artificial turf? No way! If I wanted that I would not buy a house with a garden...
Yes I wanted the pathway to invite the viewers in the garden.

@dig doug: I like the solution you used for ground cover, I am still trying to digest the planting, I would put blue grass where you put small bushes in that area covered by the big river rocks