Performance Shorter Wait Times: the Effects of Various Loading Screens
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Shorter Wait Times: The Effects of Various Loading Screens on Perceived Performance Jess Hohenstein Hani Khan Abstract Sibley School of Mechanical and Kramer Canfield Loading screens are unavoidable in modern software Aerospace Engineering Sam Tung applications, and providing graphical user feedback Cornell University Rocio Perez Cano during wait times is a well-established way to increase Ithaca, NY Department of Information Science perceived performance. Previous research has indicated [email protected] Cornell University that perceived performance is essential to the success Ithaca, NY of an application, and progress bars have been [email protected] specifically shown to decrease perceived wait time. This [email protected] study is the first to examine the effect of animated [email protected] loading screens on perceived wait time as compared to [email protected] the popular progress bar. Study participants compared a progress bar with both a passive and interactive animation. Results suggest that with an interactive animation, perceived wait time is shorter and user satisfaction is higher than with a progress bar or passive animation. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are Author Keywords not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that Design; Human Factors; Perceived Performance; copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other Perception; Loading. uses, contact the owner/author(s). Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). ACM Classification Keywords H.5.2 [Information interfaces and presentation]: User Interfaces. – Graphical user interfaces (GUI). Introduction decelerating ribbed pattern resulted in the best Perceived performance refers to how quickly software perceived performance among users [9]. Progress bars appears to perform a given task and is an integral are universally deployed in many popular applications element of building user trust and holding attention [3, and websites [7, 10]. 4]. One of the most fundamental aspects of perceived performance is waiting time. When delays are Besides progress bars, some systems use other experienced, a user can easily become annoyed and methods to give users feedback during wait times. One believe that their security has been compromised [3]. of the most innovative current methods is to provide Besides damaging user trust and satisfaction, long the user with an entertaining animation, which works to waits can also result in revenue loss, as 36% of US divide their attentional resources while simultaneously smartphone users reported abandonment of a mobile providing entertainment and/or reinforcing a brand. An transaction due to slow loading times [12]. A user’s example of this is Hipmunk, which shows an animated tolerance for latency also decreases with increased cartoon chipmunk (the company logo), along with a duration of system interaction, so it is especially progress bar [10]. Examples of creative animations important to understand cumulative frustration when during a wait time accompanied by some kind of designing software with included wait times [3]. progress bar or numerical progress indicator are extensive, including the websites for the Museum of Related Work Science and Industry, SectionSeven Inc., and Platin Methods to Shorten Perceived Wait Times [15,19,21]. This seems to indicate a preference among Users have been shown to experience less frustration designers for providing quantitative feedback to users when they are given feedback during a wait time [3]. regarding overall progress. Progress indicators alert the user that their request has been processed and accepted, an interpretation of the Work has also been done to investigate how users request has been made, and the system is now busy perceive wait times when performing other tasks. The working to provide a result [16]. When a user is interference effect occurs when users are required to provided visual feedback, their attentional resources perform a nontemporal task during a wait interval. This are divided, and less attention is paid to the wait itself has been shown to draw their attention away from [6]. timekeeping and result in a shorter perceived wait time [4]. This effect can likely be accounted for by the While waiting, users have been shown to prefer attentional allocation model, which states that users progress indicators to no progress indicators [16]. will perceive a greater time duration when more Progress bars have specifically been found to attention is allocated to it [4]. Performance of a significantly increase users’ tolerable waiting time when nontemporal task draws attentional resources away compared against no wait time feedback [6,9]. In an from timekeeping, with more difficult tasks being examination of various progress bars, Harrison et al. associated with shorter time judgments [4]. found that a progress bar with a backwards moving and Multiple Perspectives on Perceived Wait Time Method As discussed previously, several methods exist for Participants alleviating the perceived wait time in the user Participants included 145 students from a large experience, with designers seeming to have a research university in the northeastern United States. preference for progress bars and/or passive animations Their ages ranged from 18-29 (M=20.12), and 68% [7,10,15,19,21]. The perceived user wait time for were female. Students were recruited via an on-campus various types of progress bars has been investigated, web-based recruitment system and received course and design recommendations have been made based credit for participating. on the results [9]. However, questions still remain about which type of loading screen results in the Materials shortest perceived wait time and which provides the We explored three types of loading screen designs, as most satisfaction to the user. The main goal of the shown in Figure 1. Each participant was shown all three present study is to address these questions by gaining loading screens through an internet-connected web user insights on different types of loading screens. browser in the order shown and answered the same survey questions. Examining Other Influences Creative thinkers have been shown to differ from LOADING SCREENS analytical thinkers in their use of attentional resources. The first loading screen design featured a blue progress When attentional resources must be divided, creative bar. A progress bar with a backward-moving people show more difficulty completing a task than decelerating ribbed pattern was used, as this has been analytical thinkers, who are capable of maintaining a found to have the shortest perceived time when more narrow focus [1]. It is also believed that there are compared to other progress bar types [9]. The progress fundamental differences in demographics, personalities, bar served as a control to compare against the other and personal tastes between Mac and Windows users loading screens. [13]. This study also aims to investigate the effect of these supposed differences on loading screen The second loading screen design featured an preference. animation of a colorful Newton’s cradle. The animation was not interactive, and participants simply watched Visual appearance can be crucial to consumer response the swinging cradle during the waiting time. The final [2] and often results in judgments about the elegance loading screen design featured the same animation, but [5] and functionality [14] of the product. This illustrates the user had the ability to interact with it. During the that user enjoyment can be directly related to wait time, participants were given an instruction to Figure 1: Three loading screens perceived performance. In order to make robust swing the cradle. They were able to interact with the were tested: progress bar, passive animation, and suggestions for designers implementing new interfaces, animation through clicking and dragging each ball in interactive animation. overall user enjoyment was also investigated. any way that they chose. SURVEY Results and Discussion After viewing each loading screen for 10 seconds, The data suggests that a loading screen with an participants were asked a series of questions about the interactive animation will be perceived as faster and specific screen they had just seen. After all loading liked more than a loading screen with a progress bar or screens were shown, participants were taken to a final passive animation. page of questions that asked for forced comparisons of all of the loading screens. Because these questions Which loading screen do users perceive as the fastest? were answered after all loading screens had been seen, After viewing all of the loading screens, participants much of the order bias that may have been present in were forced to choose which they believed was the the results from the individual loading screen questions fastest. These responses can be seen in Figure 2. The was eliminated. Participants then provided demographic interactive loading screen was seen as the fastest information and took a TIPI (Ten Item Personality overall, and the passive animation was universally Measure) test [8]. This test helped us to gauge perceived as the slowest loading screen. The faster participants’ personality traits through a series of ten perceived speed of the progress bar compared with the questions. passive animation could suggest