4 ms·
> When I open a program, I want to use that program. I don't want to update it, I don't want to see all the new features, I want to USE it. I opened it because
by lanerobertlane 5y ago
> When I open a program, I want to use that program. I don't want to update it, I don't want to see all the new features, I want to USE it. I opened it because I had a task to complete and all this junk is getting in my way.
Jonathan Blow did a talk similar to this a few years ago, about how "software is terrible".
In a part of it, he double clicked on a .psd file to open in Photoshop and timed how long it took to open the image. It took around 8 seconds for Photoshop to display that image on screen. But the first thing the app did was show a splash screen image, almost instantly.
His argument was, "Why, when I double click this image file that I want to view, does it instantly load an image which isn't the one I want to view, and then take 8 seconds to load the one I do want to view. If it can instantly load an image when I double click the file, why isn't that image the one I double clicked?"
- tobr 5y agoI’ve seen that talk too, and it struck me as a bad example. Photoshop is not primarily a tool for viewing images, but for editing them. It would be great if it could get me there faster, but as a comparison I just tried timing how long it takes to launch The Witness, and ended up with something like 13 seconds.
- c-cube 5y agoIf it takes 8s to load the file, the better design is to take 8.05s instead to display the splash screen and a progress bar to indicate to the user that their request is being processed. Good interfaces are never unresponsive. So, bad example. :)
- laurent92 5y agoIn a parallel world, the image loads first, alone on the screen, then the toolboxes, then the window frame. Then the splash screen for 8s because the marketing guys always have it ;)