China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Ergonomic Characteristic of Software for Enterprise Management Systems
Published in Peter Vink, Advances in Social and Organizational Factors, 2012
It is essential for the user to receive system feedback at the very moment it is expected. Usually such time is short so the user does not have to wait for the system to respond. It is difficult to define the response time acceptable to users as this depends on the situation. What is certain, however, is that if the system response time is kept short, the computer and the user are capable of exchanging more information which makes the workflow more efficient. Yet, despite progress in the development of IT equipment, short response times prove very expensive to achieve. The difficulty often lies in the internal organization of the system and the method and location of data storage. Users may be willing to tolerate longer response times when they realize that large volumes of data are being processed or that data are being retrieved from remote databases. A user convinced that an operation is not complex will not accept a longer response time. It is therefore essential that the user be kept informed on system status and the progress in task completion. Users should be aware that the system is in operation and that they need to wait. A message to this effect may be given graphically or verbally in the status bar or a separate dialogue box. For prolonged waiting times, it is advisable to display a progress bar.
Gamification is Working, but Which One Exactly? Results from an Experiment with Four Game Design Elements
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Athanasios Mazarakis, Paula Bräuer
Progress bars can be used to represent objectives in a comprehensible way and also provide subjects a graphical information about the (partial) success of the objective (Sailer et al., 2013). Current studies investigating progress bars (Geelan et al., 2015) do not yet assess the individual effect of this game design element on motivation. Only recently there was an exception to this practice, where a study with 185 subjects in the context of the theory of gamified learning, mostly failed to find statistically significant results for progress bar and a combination of progress bar and badges (Garcia-Marquez & Bauer, 2021).
Time swipes when you’re having fun: reducing perceived waiting time while making it more enjoyable
Published in Behaviour & Information Technology, 2023
Christof Van Nimwegen, Emiel Van Rijn
Progress Bar – A progress bar gives information concerning progress and how much there still is to be done (Figure 1(b)). This is useful for long waits, as one can decide to keep waiting, or perform some other task and come back later. A problem with progress bars is that it is hard to determine how long the waiting will exactly take (Sherwin 2014). However, they do reduce uncertainty and anxiety about the system’s status and set user expectations (thus facilitating for example, multi-tasking).
The effects of mobile applications’ passive and interactive loading screen types on waiting experience
Published in Behaviour & Information Technology, 2023
Anping Cheng, Dongming Ma, Hao Qian, Younghwan Pan
Visual feedback is often used in loading screens to improve user experience (Nah 2004). Generally speaking, user satisfaction improves with the shortened estimated duration (Laghari et al. 2018b; Söderström, Bååth, and Mejtoft 2018; Zhao et al. 2017). Hence, several studies of different feedback types have been conducted to investigate how to shorten the perception time and improve user satisfaction. Visual feedback can divide the attentional resources of users and prolong the waiting time (Nah 2004). Many studies try to provide a good user experience with different types of waiting feedback while loading a web or app. Users prefer a linear progress bar to a cycling progress bar, whereas the video progress indicator yields the shortest waiting duration and the best user experience (Amer and Johnson 2014). Although the dynamic animator seems to give users extra information and attract attention from the unavoidable loading, the research shows that compared with the black loading screen, the passive animation loading screen prolonged the estimated duration and lowered the evaluation of speed and satisfaction (Zhao et al. 2017). The interactive loading screen has thankfully relieved some of the boredom that comes with long load times by entertaining us with small minigames. The first game to feature interactive loading screens was Skyline Attack for the Commodore 64 in 1984. The interactive loading screens generally involve simply moving objects around on the screen, usually with some relevance to the application itself. Hohenstein et al. (2016) asked users to compare a progress bar with both a passive and interactive animation; they found that with interactive animation, the perceived wait time is shorter, and user satisfaction is higher than with a progress bar or passive animation. Heidrich, Wohlan, and Schaller (2020) conducted a user study to investigate the effects of interactive and passive loading screens on the users’ loading screen experience in VR. They found that interactive loading screens improved participants’ loading screen experience by increasing perceived speed and enjoyment and decreasing their frustration while waiting. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the effect of interactive loading screens on the waiting experience compared to passive loading screens on mobile devices.