If a download or something seems to be taking too long, I'll actually put the point of my mouse cursor at the edge of the progress bar to see whether it's stuck or just moving really really slowly. I really don't like these illusions.
In contrast with Microsoft, which switched from standard progress bars to "right moving ripple" progress bars in Vista. Which, as the article states, makes it look like it's moving slower!
Both still look like they're still moving when they're stopped though, which is the real point of them. Tricking the user into believing the task will be completed before it really will be isn't the goal - otherwise they'd intentionally underestimate completion times when they're displayed.
I think that actually is what they are designed to do, make it look like it is going to be completed sooner. If you just underestimate completion times, the you'll have a 100% complete bar while still making the user wait - that will make it look broken and slow, the opposite effect. Better to overestimate, then the task will be completed "early" because it was so "fast".
This is exactly how people perceive execution time. If a progress bar goes to completion and then hangs users will perceive that operation as taking longer than if a progress bar goes to, say, 70% and then jumps to completion, even if the total time of the operation is the same.
It makes sense though, people are the most impatient when they've been waiting the longest so being surprised that the operation completed faster than they were led to think it would is more welcome than having to wait longer than they thought they'd have to.
Also, the progress bar that they used to have for starting up OSX (removed in Leopard I think?) had no actual relation to anything the machine was doing, it was just timed to move across at a particular rate based on the average startup speed of your computer.
That progress bar may not be tied to actual events, but it does give you a reasonably accurate view of the time remaining until the login window will appear-- probably more accurate than if the programmer guesses how much each startup phase is worth and the bar ends up moving erratically.
Ehm, I beg to differ. Booting off a regular drive (non-SSD) can produce pretty variable times, depending on if you just installed something, fragmented the drive with some large files, etc. I remember many startups on my old PowerBook G4 running Tiger where the bar would reach the end and keep pulsing for another twenty seconds, much to my confusion/amusement.
I think it's safe to assume that they knew what they were doing. Apple sweats the details, like making a sleep indicator light that pulses to the speed of a heartbeat.
Bet yours is a couple years old. They really reduced the intensity when they switched to unibody enclosures.
Anecdote: My first MBP was a graduation present from my parents just before I graduated HS. For some unmemorable reason they “grounded” me from it for a day or two (during finals, maybe?) - but in its sleep state, it was keeping them from sleeping, themselves, with its bright, pulsing LED as it sat on Mom's dresser. I had to laugh just a little at what felt, to me, like Apple-sponsored karmic revenge :)
The current MacBook Air doesn't have a sleep light - the next round of MBPs might not have one either. The idea it to close the laptop when you are not using it. Sleep is the default state, so no need for a status indicator. Just like the iPhone/iPad/iPod.
There's a big difference between the MBP and the Air/iPhone/iPad/iPod though -- solid-state drives. The sleep indicator tells you when it's safe to pick your computer up.
Sleep is the default state, so no need for a status indicator.
Wrong!
Sleep may be the default state but I definitely want to see whether it's really in that state - or in some other.
I hate this kind of wishful thinking from hardware designers.
It's the same mindset that removed the status LED from the Samsung Galaxy S. A status LED that exists on almost every other android handset and that is very useful for indicating missed calls, low battery and many other things (it's freely programmable).
Congrats Samsung and Apple, you saved on a $0.20 part - but in the wrong place.
Ah yes, that's the patent I was looking for, upvotes all around :). I mistakenly googled for 'heartbeat' instead of 'breath', for which only the GigaOM article turned up.
"The average respiratory rate for adults is 12-20 breaths per minute, which is the rate that the sleep-indicator light fades in and out on most Apple laptops. Older models such as the Macintosh PowerBook, however, use a blinking LED indicator, with discrete pulses in one-second intervals.
The other day, I noticed that my friend’s Dell laptop had a similar feature but with a shorter fade-in-fade-out period. Its rate was around 40 blinks per second, or the average respiratory rate for adults during strenuous exercise not very indicative of something in sleep-mode."
Nah, they're just doing it to be cool. Nothing in a quiescent, stable state (ie not requiring attention) should be animated. Animation - even a pulse - pulls your attention. Yes, you can /learn/ to ignore an animation, but you shouldn't have to do that in the first place.
The biggest illusion of progress bars is when they don't accurately represent the time left for something to complete. Like when you wait 7,5 minutes for the bar to reach 75% and then it suddenly jumps to 100%, instead of taking another 2,5 minutes to complete (that is frequent on installation processes).
Of course, when it comes to download progress bars it's not possible to make it accurate without making it bigger as the download speed drops and making it infinite/disable it when the speed is 0KB/s. But in other offline tasks the progress bar is frequently useless to capture time remaining for the completion of something.
That's probably why a time remaining label is added to them.
Firefox is worse; it often immediately goes to about 75%, then just sits there, then jumps to the end; it is the most useless progress bar I have seen yet (and I have been using computers since Windows 3.1).
A small file could cause this. The browser starts to download the file to a temporary directory, while the user is choosing the final location, so when the progress bar appears, most of the file is already there, then the rest of the file arrives at the same time that the system is creating the new file and copying the contents from the temporary file to the location chosen by the user. Disk file operations can block for an instant. When the bar is to be updated again, the download is complete, so it simply vanishes.
The brain is a tricky thing. Even seeing this video I'm sure that the "left moving ripple" progress bar still seems faster to us.
Can something like the be applied to the loading animations in webapps? If the circle pulses or slows then speeds up randomly will it seem like the app is working faster or slower for the user?
I do. Of course, for long file downloads. Some programs do it right. But, as soon as I detect that certain progress bar is unreliable, I lose "interest" :-)
The residents in an apartment block kept complaining that the elevator was too slow. The building's owners got several quotes to upgrade the elevator but they were all too expensive and ran into many thousands of dollars.
Eventually they were approached by a old man who lived on the ground floor. He said he could solve the problem for just a few hundred dollars. In desperation they agreed to give it a try and a few days later all the complaints stopped.
His solution - simply install mirrors next to the elevators. It was enough of a distraction that people didn't mind the wait.
I'm sure there are many more entertaining ways to distract than a simple ripple.
Interesting illusion, but I wonder what is the desirable effect here.
I can imagine it being argued both ways:
1. the bar should be animated so that it looks faster than it really is.
2. the bar should be animated in the reverse way, so that download is actually faster than it seems from the bar, thereby giving a positive surprise to the user.
