3 ms·

> It is not saying everything in the world needs to be done in 64ms. Well, most actually could be. And a snappy "acknowledgement" only impresses me the first

by jlg23 7y ago

> It is not saying everything in the world needs to be done in 64ms. Well, most actually could be. And a snappy "acknowledgement" only impresses me the first time. The second time I stare at the loading indicators in disbelief, while waiting for the not-so-snappy action to execute.

dahart 7y ago
What are you suggesting as alternatives that will impress you? Would you prefer to have no indication on screen that something is loading, and no indication that acknowledges you even clicked on something? Do you see a better way to show that megabytes of data are on the way but not here yet? Loading indicators are simply one single example of how to respond to user actions on-screen. The idea is more broad than this, the idea is for clients to respond immediately to any inputs. This is true for opening menus, clicking buttons, typing, pushing on the D-pad, waving the Wiimote, pressing on your MIDI controller, waving your arms for the camera... it applies to any and all input devices for all applications. This idea is not in the least bit controversial, I'm surprised by the amount of push-back here in this thread. Devs of games and interactive apps have always done this. If the machine doesn't acknowledge user input immediately, the user doesn't know if the input was captured, and very quickly decides the machine is slow or buggy.
- jlg23 7y ago
  > What are you suggesting as alternatives that will impress you? In contrast to "not-so-snappy actions"? Snappy actions. As I tried to say before: Instantaneous feedback is great (even necessary) for first time users. But once I get used to an app, waiting for the termination of a loading indicator is just as annoying as waiting for {page|script}-{load|parse|eval}. Edit: > This idea is not in the least bit controversial. I agree that content generation in one-digit milliseconds is not controversial.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    64ms is still not something you're going to be "waiting" for. Typical human reaction time is 200ms or so. This effectively means that for 200-264ms you're not priming to repeat the action or wondering whether it "took", because there's an immediate response and the action itself does something useful quickly.
  - dahart 7y ago
    The post's entire point is to say make all actions snappy. That doesn't mean you can finish loading a video instantaneously, it means you can acknowledge the user's request to start loading a video instantaneously. Waiting for termination of a loading indicator on a web page is irrelevant to this post, it's a tangential topic completely. "content" in the post is not referring to web page content, it's referring to UI content. We're not talking about content generation in the web page sense.
Dylan16807 7y ago
Disbelief? You get upset when buttons have a 'clicked' state, or something? It's hard for me to picture how acknowledgment of input isn't a good thing.

by jlg23 7y ago

dahart 7y ago

What are you suggesting as alternatives that will impress you? Would you prefer to have no indication on screen that something is loading, and no indication that acknowledges you even clicked on something? Do you see a better way to show that megabytes of data are on the way but not here yet? Loading indicators are simply one single example of how to respond to user actions on-screen. The idea is more broad than this, the idea is for clients to respond immediately to any inputs. This is true for opening menus, clicking buttons, typing, pushing on the D-pad, waving the Wiimote, pressing on your MIDI controller, waving your arms for the camera... it applies to any and all input devices for all applications. This idea is not in the least bit controversial, I'm surprised by the amount of push-back here in this thread. Devs of games and interactive apps have always done this. If the machine doesn't acknowledge user input immediately, the user doesn't know if the input was captured, and very quickly decides the machine is slow or buggy.

jlg23 7y ago
> What are you suggesting as alternatives that will impress you? In contrast to "not-so-snappy actions"? Snappy actions. As I tried to say before: Instantaneous feedback is great (even necessary) for first time users. But once I get used to an app, waiting for the termination of a loading indicator is just as annoying as waiting for {page|script}-{load|parse|eval}. Edit: > This idea is not in the least bit controversial. I agree that content generation in one-digit milliseconds is not controversial.
- mlyle 7y ago
  64ms is still not something you're going to be "waiting" for. Typical human reaction time is 200ms or so. This effectively means that for 200-264ms you're not priming to repeat the action or wondering whether it "took", because there's an immediate response and the action itself does something useful quickly.
- dahart 7y ago
  The post's entire point is to say make all actions snappy. That doesn't mean you can finish loading a video instantaneously, it means you can acknowledge the user's request to start loading a video instantaneously. Waiting for termination of a loading indicator on a web page is irrelevant to this post, it's a tangential topic completely. "content" in the post is not referring to web page content, it's referring to UI content. We're not talking about content generation in the web page sense.

Dylan16807 7y ago

Disbelief? You get upset when buttons have a 'clicked' state, or something? It's hard for me to picture how acknowledgment of input isn't a good thing.