Active Progress Bar: Aiding the switch to temporary activities

Hurter, Christophe; Cowan, Benjamin R.; Girouard, Audrey; Riche, Nathalie Henry

doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2012.15

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this regard, some authors 18 propose, beyond the improvement of progress bars in themselves, to reflect on how we could help the user make the best use of this waiting time. "Active progress bars" as they describe in their recent study conducted in 2011, provide the user with features enabling one to carry out temporary activities during the wait (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Progress Bars’ Behavior Influence the User Experience in Human-Computer Interaction?

Gronier¹,

Baudet²

2019

Psychol Cogn Sci Open J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This research focuses on the satisfaction and waiting times perceived by a user during the moments where the interaction between the user and the system is temporarily interrupted (file download, setup of a program, etc.). These waiting times are often sources of anxiety and irritation. They go usually with the presentation of an animated progress bar, allowing the user to visualize the status of the ongoing process. The objective of this research is to study the impact of several progress bars by varying the progress behavior with three different speed. Methods: Three progress bars were tested, each of them having the same display duration of 10 seconds but with different speed. The first progress bar having a speed-up behavior (the progress bar fills to about 30% during the first 5 seconds, then fills completely as it accelerates), the second a slow-down behavior (the progress bar fills to about 70% during the first 5 seconds, then fills completely when decelerating), the third a constant behavior (the progress bar keeps a constant filling rate during the 10 seconds). Eleven hundred twenty seven distinct subjects (controlled IP) were involved, including 105 women and 1022 men. The mean age of the sample was 24.9 years (SD=7.11). Each subject has to play with an online game, which was a pretext to present a standby screen of 10 seconds when one of the three progress bars were displayed in a random manner. Results: The results confirm the existence of a causal link between the perception of waiting time and satisfaction. In addition, a progress bar that follows a slow-down function is significantly more appreciated by the users. An ANOVA-test applied to the comparison of means for each of the progress bars shows that there is a significant difference in the satisfaction of waiting for durations (F(2, 1124)=3.003, MSE=1.099, p=.050, np2=0.270). On the other hand, there is no significant difference in the perception of waiting durations. Conclusions: Our results show in our context of experimentation that a progress bar with a decelerating filling rate provides greater satisfaction than a constant progress bar or a speed-up bar. The results may provide valuable information for the design of human-computer interfaces and for the improvement of user experience. Thus, beyond varying waiting time duration, different levels of users' arousal could be introduced as well as the user feedback with information relevant to the ongoing processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Progress Bars’ Behavior Influence the User Experience in Human-Computer Interaction?

Gronier¹,

Baudet²

2019

Psychol Cogn Sci Open J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…al. [9] indicated that users desire to conduct extra activities than just waiting passively while waiting for a longer time. Hence, it is necessary to look more into long waits.…”

Section: Perceived Waiting Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Speed, Frustration and Enjoyment of Interactive and Passive Loading Scenarios in Virtual Reality

Heidrich

Wohlan

Schaller

2020

HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Papers: Virtual and Augmented Reality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long waits and disruptive loading breaks can evoke negative emotions, like frustration. While there is a lot of research on 2D-based loading scenarios, it is unclear how people react to loading screens in an immersive virtual reality (VR) environment. In this paper we conducted a user study to investigate the effects of interactive and passive loading screens on the users' loading screen experience (LSE) in VR. We measured perceived speed, enjoyment and frustration for long and short waiting times. Results show that interactive loading screens improved participants' LSE through increasing perceived speed and enjoyment, and decreased their frustration while waiting. Thus, previous findings of 2D-based research were confirmed. Therefore, our research provides a first approach for further investigations of different loading screens in VR.

show abstract

“…Progress Indicator는 컴퓨터에서 작업이 얼마나 진행되고 있 는지 시각화하는 GUI(Graphical User Interface)이다. 대기시간 이 발생했을 때 Progress Indicator는 현재 얼마나 진행되는지 알 려줌으로 사용자의 답답함을 덜어주며 프로세스의 진행 상황 과 남은 대기시간을 예측할 수 있게 한다 (Hurter, 2011). Progress Indicator는 대표적으로 Bar 형태와 Spinner 형태가 있다.…”

Section: Figure 1 Progress Indicator With Partitioning Effectunclassified

Effects of Partitioning Progress Indicators on Perceived Waiting Time and Overall Satisfaction

Shin¹,

Park²,

Kim³

2018

JKIIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to apply the partitioning technique used in the education and marketing to progress indicator and to confirm the effect on perceived waiting time and satisfaction. 30 young adults participated in the experiment. Progress Indicators were given for 3 durations based on previous studies. The maximum partition level of progress indicators was 4. The bar and spinner types were provided. A total of 24 progress Indicators (4 Partitions (1~4)×3 durations (4s, 10s, 20s)×2 Shapes (Bar, Spinner)) was given. Participants rated perceived waiting time and overall satisfaction on each progress indicator. Experimental results showed that the effects of partitioning, duration, and shape on perceived waiting time were statistically significant. As the number of partition increases, perceived waiting time was decreased. Duration of progress indicator and perceived waiting time were linearly related. Users preferred bar types rather than spinner types. Effects of duration and shape on overall satisfaction were statistically significant, but the one of partitioning was not. According to gathered comments, the excess of partitioning led to eye fatigues or annoyance. †

show abstract

Active Progress Bar: Aiding the switch to temporary activities

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Does Progress Bars’ Behavior Influence the User Experience in Human-Computer Interaction?

Does Progress Bars’ Behavior Influence the User Experience in Human-Computer Interaction?

Perceived Speed, Frustration and Enjoyment of Interactive and Passive Loading Scenarios in Virtual Reality

Effects of Partitioning Progress Indicators on Perceived Waiting Time and Overall Satisfaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About