4 ms·

There was a revelation a while back that instantaneous UX can be detrimental. If the action occurs so quickly that the users can't see it happening, they have a

There was a revelation a while back that instantaneous UX can be detrimental. If the action occurs so quickly that the users can't see it happening, they have a tendency to assume it didn't happen. Programmers had to introduce intentional latency through elements such as the file copy animation.

blattimwind 6y ago
I disagree. What you describe is a problem of interaction design founded on bad assumptions; with good interaction design I don't have to show the user that the computer is doing something for the user to be able to tell it happened. This is a problem of the system not showing its state transparently and relying on the user to notice a change in hidden state indicated by a transient window. Windows Explorer gets your particular example right: When you copy a bunch of files into a folder, it will highlight all of the copied files after it is done, so it doesn't matter if you saw the progress bar or not.
derefr 6y ago
That was indeed a while back—we had fewer ways to communicate change back then. Given all the fancy technologies in a modern laptop/mobile device, I wonder how much more we could tell the user without slowing down to give visual feedback—instead communicating by haptic and/or 3D-audio feedback after the fact (the same way that e.g. macOS plays a sound effect after-the-fact when you put something in the Trash—but with a procedurally-synthesized soundscape, rather than the static "it went to the bottom-right.")
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  Oooo. So I think this is a terrible idea for most people, but something I would personally love. I'm a big fan of 3 monitors in a slight "wrapping" formation, but there are times when some event occurs on a screen which is literally behind me if I'm looking at one of the far monitors. It would be so cool to have 3D audio feedback that lets you calibrate to the layout of your monitors.
cellularmitosis 6y ago
> Programmers had to introduce intentional latency Hmm, perhaps if you replace the word "latency" with "duration"?
joshspankit 6y ago
Having seen all this from the inside of more offices than I can remember, I would say definitively yes. That programmers did have to introduce delays for that, and for other reasons. However, this was a trust thing, and not an innate limitation of human capacity. Now that we’re in 2020, I would argue that almost 0 users need that crutch. If the work is done, it’s done. Similarly, employees on early keyboard-only terminals didn’t need any delay either. They trusted that when they said do X, the system did it. How else could you process dozens (or hundreds!) of items a minute?

blattimwind 6y ago

I disagree. What you describe is a problem of interaction design founded on bad assumptions; with good interaction design I don't have to show the user that the computer is doing something for the user to be able to tell it happened. This is a problem of the system not showing its state transparently and relying on the user to notice a change in hidden state indicated by a transient window. Windows Explorer gets your particular example right: When you copy a bunch of files into a folder, it will highlight all of the copied files after it is done, so it doesn't matter if you saw the progress bar or not.

derefr 6y ago

That was indeed a while back—we had fewer ways to communicate change back then. Given all the fancy technologies in a modern laptop/mobile device, I wonder how much more we could tell the user without slowing down to give visual feedback—instead communicating by haptic and/or 3D-audio feedback after the fact (the same way that e.g. macOS plays a sound effect after-the-fact when you put something in the Trash—but with a procedurally-synthesized soundscape, rather than the static "it went to the bottom-right.")

bonestormii_ 6y ago
Oooo. So I think this is a terrible idea for most people, but something I would personally love. I'm a big fan of 3 monitors in a slight "wrapping" formation, but there are times when some event occurs on a screen which is literally behind me if I'm looking at one of the far monitors. It would be so cool to have 3D audio feedback that lets you calibrate to the layout of your monitors.

cellularmitosis 6y ago

> Programmers had to introduce intentional latency Hmm, perhaps if you replace the word "latency" with "duration"?

joshspankit 6y ago

Having seen all this from the inside of more offices than I can remember, I would say definitively yes. That programmers did have to introduce delays for that, and for other reasons. However, this was a trust thing, and not an innate limitation of human capacity. Now that we’re in 2020, I would argue that almost 0 users need that crutch. If the work is done, it’s done. Similarly, employees on early keyboard-only terminals didn’t need any delay either. They trusted that when they said do X, the system did it. How else could you process dozens (or hundreds!) of items a minute?