4 ms·

There are other things than the web. Though maybe not for long, if everyone starts thinking like you just did…

dangus 7y ago
It just shows you how silly and arbitrary the manifesto is. Any "interactive software application" should show "at least a full screen of content." My web browser is an interactive software application and it doesn't even start up and put an about:blank page on my screen in 64 ms. Repeat this statement for literally any GUI application, the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms. And anyway, how big is a "screen?" What is the measurement of a screen of content? Do I have to fill up a 320x480 screen or a 3840x2160 screen? How many characters is a "screen? Pictures? Video frames?" If you make some kind of transform in Illustrator or Photoshop, why would it be reasonable to give up the quality of the end result just to hit that arbitrary 64 ms goal? Can Illustrator even load/render a simple design like a company logo in 64 ms? A lot of interactive software combines batch processes with live interaction, too, so why would it be reasonable to be unwilling to wait more than 64ms for calculation, rendering, or transformation procedures? Of what use would the unfinished content be if it were shown to me within 64ms? Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will. This website is more of an exercise in snark and elitism than anything else.
- dahart 7y ago
  > My web browser is an interactive software application and it doesn't even start up and put an about:blank page on my screen in 64 ms. Repeat this statement for literally any GUI application, the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms. This is a straw-man. You didn't ask your web browser to open, you asked your OS. Your OS shows you the response to your request to load an app or web browser, and it shows that response immediately. The launch icon blinks, your cursor changes, and a blank frame appears all within the span of a few frames. > And anyway, how big is a "screen?" You get to decide. I don't think the post was meant to be taken as so extremely literal as that. > Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will Browsers and games already do follow this guideline. I think you're mis-reading what's here, and what's here is already generally accepted and very much used broadly. The audience for this post may be devs unfamiliar with interaction best practices, new web developers who don't think to show changes on screen before a network response, or don't want to do extra work when it seems like a .then() is completely sufficient. > This website is more of an exercise in snark and elitism than anything else. Why do you feel it's snarky or elitist? Is it possible you're mis-interpreting this post, or just in a bad mood? As someone who's worked in games and interactive apps, I interpret the post to mean that for user interactions, please keep performance-as-a-feature in mind. There have been many threads on HN on this over the years, and that's just a drop in the bucket compared to all the talk of how to keep interaction from being frustrating to the user.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms Well, it should! Why does it take more than 100 million cycles to put up a window? Because it's not a priority, not because it's particularly hard. > Illustrator or Photoshop It can render in the background, but it should remain responsive the entire time and anything that doesn't need batch processing should be instant. > Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will. Most applications could follow it with only a medium amount of discipline.

It just shows you how silly and arbitrary the manifesto is. Any "interactive software application" should show "at least a full screen of content." My web browser is an interactive software application and it doesn't even start up and put an about:blank page on my screen in 64 ms. Repeat this statement for literally any GUI application, the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms. And anyway, how big is a "screen?" What is the measurement of a screen of content? Do I have to fill up a 320x480 screen or a 3840x2160 screen? How many characters is a "screen? Pictures? Video frames?" If you make some kind of transform in Illustrator or Photoshop, why would it be reasonable to give up the quality of the end result just to hit that arbitrary 64 ms goal? Can Illustrator even load/render a simple design like a company logo in 64 ms? A lot of interactive software combines batch processes with live interaction, too, so why would it be reasonable to be unwilling to wait more than 64ms for calculation, rendering, or transformation procedures? Of what use would the unfinished content be if it were shown to me within 64ms? Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will. This website is more of an exercise in snark and elitism than anything else.

dahart 7y ago
> My web browser is an interactive software application and it doesn't even start up and put an about:blank page on my screen in 64 ms. Repeat this statement for literally any GUI application, the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms. This is a straw-man. You didn't ask your web browser to open, you asked your OS. Your OS shows you the response to your request to load an app or web browser, and it shows that response immediately. The launch icon blinks, your cursor changes, and a blank frame appears all within the span of a few frames. > And anyway, how big is a "screen?" You get to decide. I don't think the post was meant to be taken as so extremely literal as that. > Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will Browsers and games already do follow this guideline. I think you're mis-reading what's here, and what's here is already generally accepted and very much used broadly. The audience for this post may be devs unfamiliar with interaction best practices, new web developers who don't think to show changes on screen before a network response, or don't want to do extra work when it seems like a .then() is completely sufficient. > This website is more of an exercise in snark and elitism than anything else. Why do you feel it's snarky or elitist? Is it possible you're mis-interpreting this post, or just in a bad mood? As someone who's worked in games and interactive apps, I interpret the post to mean that for user interactions, please keep performance-as-a-feature in mind. There have been many threads on HN on this over the years, and that's just a drop in the bucket compared to all the talk of how to keep interaction from being frustrating to the user.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Dylan16807 7y ago
> the containing window don't even appear in 64 ms Well, it should! Why does it take more than 100 million cycles to put up a window? Because it's not a priority, not because it's particularly hard. > Illustrator or Photoshop It can render in the background, but it should remain responsive the entire time and anything that doesn't need batch processing should be instant. > Essentially no application follows this guideline and never will. Most applications could follow it with only a medium amount of discipline.