3 ms·
> [...] but clicked "back" after waiting 2s [...] This is not a new phenomenon. 2 seconds is already well within the "users/viewers tapering off" band in the N
by bostik 9y ago
> [...] but clicked "back" after waiting 2s [...]
This is not a new phenomenon. 2 seconds is already well within the "users/viewers tapering off" band in the Nielsen thresholds.[0] The Nielsen study formulated the usability latencies in early 90's, but the effects of measurable delays have been known at least from the 70's.
The moment you're above 1 second, you're making your users wait for something to happen. Apply power law to get an estimate how many are getting annoyed and giving up.
To make things even worse, keep in mind how horrible the mobile internet latencies are for connection handshakes. It's not impossible to have a base latency of ~700ms for any new connection. That leaves you with no more than 300ms to actually serve the content. And for the mobile device to render it...
0: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-limits/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-...
- dtornabene 9y agoExcept that phenomenon is far more attenuated by interaction and the complexity of the medium. I'd argue; to the point perhaps of being an almost new phenomenon.
- bostik 9y agoI find myself disagreeing with you. You are right about this being driven by interaction, and humans needing to see that something is happening. But even if your application responds with "processing request", you have - at best - reset the timer. If it takes longer than one second from the reset for the data to be shown, the user is again entering the "is this slow or broken?" time band. The Nielsen thresholds appear to be fundamental to human nature, and I would be surprised if we have somehow managed to teach humanity to be less impatient over the past few decades. If anything, the dopamine-hit fueled online systems have taught the users to expect even more immediate feedback.