5 ms·

How is setting a 400ms transition NOT breaking the "law" to not make users wait more than 400ms?

by pbreit 6y ago

dahart 6y ago
The rule is talking about whether the system acknowledges your input visually. The input is specifically acknowledged by the animation starting and then playing. That is the indicator that the click was received. On a technicality, I'll mention that a 400ms transition technically isn't more than 400ms, it's equal to 400ms. That's just me being cheeky though, it's irrelevant, because rule #2 is met on my laptop within 17ms when the animation begins.
- jakear 6y ago
  Let’s look at the rule itself instead of making baseless declarations about what the rule is talking about: Productivity soars when a computer and its users interact at a pace (<400ms) that ensures that neither has to wait on the other. Further, from the original study itself: "When a human being’s command was executed and returned an answer In under 400 milliseconds, it was deemed to exceed the Doherty threshold, and use of such applications were deemed to be “addicting” to users." My answer has not been returned within 400ms, and I had to wait for the computer, and the site was so un addicting that I exited out after suffering through those animations only 2 times. Thus not a single interpretation of Doherty threshold in its original form has been met. It’s really quite simple. If acknowledging input rather than returning an answer was all that was needed, the rule would state as such and the old hat engineers making the original computers would have had wired “Enter” up to “bell” and called it a day. Luckily they weren’t nearly as lazy as many in this thread seem to be. For cases such as the “downloading a 3gb file” that get brought up, I’d consider the “answer” to pressing the download link to be the dialog box saying that a download has started. I would not consider the “answer” to clicking a link to be an animation saying... I’m not sure what; rather, the “answer” to clicking a link is clearly my browser starting to navigate to that link Side note: just for funzies, I patched vscode to show a loading animation for 400ms before opening new files. After playing around with it for a couple minutes, I can assure you that if I pushed that to master, insiders users would come screaming tomorrow morning and all the “well actually this is in compliance with XXX law because technically...” would not appease them. If you wouldn’t accept it in your editor, why accept it in your websites?

How is setting a 400ms transition NOT breaking the "law" to not make users wait more than 400ms?

by pbreit 6y ago

How is setting a 400ms transition NOT breaking the "law" to not make users wait more than 400ms?

The rule is talking about whether the system acknowledges your input visually. The input is specifically acknowledged by the animation starting and then playing. That is the indicator that the click was received. On a technicality, I'll mention that a 400ms transition technically isn't more than 400ms, it's equal to 400ms. That's just me being cheeky though, it's irrelevant, because rule #2 is met on my laptop within 17ms when the animation begins.

jakear 6y ago
Let’s look at the rule itself instead of making baseless declarations about what the rule is talking about: Productivity soars when a computer and its users interact at a pace (<400ms) that ensures that neither has to wait on the other. Further, from the original study itself: "When a human being’s command was executed and returned an answer In under 400 milliseconds, it was deemed to exceed the Doherty threshold, and use of such applications were deemed to be “addicting” to users." My answer has not been returned within 400ms, and I had to wait for the computer, and the site was so un addicting that I exited out after suffering through those animations only 2 times. Thus not a single interpretation of Doherty threshold in its original form has been met. It’s really quite simple. If acknowledging input rather than returning an answer was all that was needed, the rule would state as such and the old hat engineers making the original computers would have had wired “Enter” up to “bell” and called it a day. Luckily they weren’t nearly as lazy as many in this thread seem to be. For cases such as the “downloading a 3gb file” that get brought up, I’d consider the “answer” to pressing the download link to be the dialog box saying that a download has started. I would not consider the “answer” to clicking a link to be an animation saying... I’m not sure what; rather, the “answer” to clicking a link is clearly my browser starting to navigate to that link Side note: just for funzies, I patched vscode to show a loading animation for 400ms before opening new files. After playing around with it for a couple minutes, I can assure you that if I pushed that to master, insiders users would come screaming tomorrow morning and all the “well actually this is in compliance with XXX law because technically...” would not appease them. If you wouldn’t accept it in your editor, why accept it in your websites?