3 ms·
I agree, but want to add to this by saying there should still be some indicator that a background process is happening. This is effectively done via a "spinner
by jacurtis 5y ago
I agree, but want to add to this by saying there should still be some indicator that a background process is happening.
This is effectively done via a "spinner".
While a loading bar would be better than a spinner in most cases, that is only the case if the loading bar is actually indicative of progress. If a dev team doesn't (or can't) produce a semi-accurate loading bar, then just throw a spinner up and call it a day.
But it is still nice to have a spinner to let the user know that something is happening in the background that you can't see. Just displaying a blank screen or a fancy envelope icon can confuse users and cause them to refresh the page or click the back button in a panic to get to what they are expecting (a screen of their inbox).
Progress bars are ideal. But they need to actually work if you have them. But table stakes for modern software is at least a spinner to inform the user that something is happening in the background.
- everyone 5y agoye totally agree with that. Spinner + some sort of semantic explanation. Like simply the text "loading gmail" or whatever. Tell the user what is happening.
- xg15 5y ago> I agree, but want to add to this by saying there should still be some indicator that a background process is happening. This is effectively done via a "spinner". If spinners actually indicated that, it would be useful. Unfortunately, most spinners in web apps - like this one - are simply static animations replayed by the browser, without any actual involvement by the app's code. All they indicate is that the browser didn't freeze - something I usually already know if I have another tab open. They don't give me any information about the actual application: The browser will happily keep the animation running even if the app's JavaScript is already brain-dead or if the app has long lost all connectivity.