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

Crossmark: check for updates

Authors

  • Guillaume Gronier Departement of Information Technology for Innovative Sciences (ITIS), Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), 5 av. des Hauts Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
  • Alexandre Baudet Departement of Information Technology for Innovative Sciences (ITIS), Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), 5 av. des Hauts Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17140/PCSOJ-5-144

Keywords:

Progress bar, Perception of waiting time, Satisfaction, Human-computer interaction, Metaphors

Abstract

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.

References

Scapin D, Bastien JMC. Ergonomic criteria for evaluating the ergonomic quality of interactive systems. Behav Inf Technol. 1997; 16(4): 220-231. doi 10.1080/014492997119806

Macar F, Grondin S, Casini L. Controlled attention sharing influ-ences time estimation. Mem Cognit. 1994; 22: 673-686.

Gronier G, Gomri S. Etude des métaphores temporelles sur la perception du temps d’attente. In: Proceedings of Conférence Sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine. 2008.

Kum D, Lee YH, Yeung C. The velocity of time: Primacy and recency effects on time perception. Adv Consum Res. 2007; 35(1): 943-944.

Soman D. Prospective and retrospective evaluations of expe-riences: How you evaluate an experience depends on when you evaluate it. J Behav Decis Mak. 2003; 16(1): 35-52. doi: 10.1002/ bdm.431

Leclerc F, Schmitt BH, Dube L. Waiting time and decision making: Is time like money? J Consum Res. 1995; 22(1): 110. doi: 10.1086/209439

Zakay D. Attention et jugement temporel. Psychol Française. 2005; 50(1): 65-79. doi: 10.1016/j.psfr.2004.10.004

Block RA, Hancock PA, Zakay D. How cognitive load affects duration judgments: a meta-analytic review. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010; 134(3): 330-343. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.006

Zakay D, Block RA. Temporal Cognition. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1997; 6(1): 12-16. doi: 10.1111%2F1467-8721.ep11512604

Branaghan RJ, Sanchez CA. Feedback preferences and im-pressions of waiting. Hum Factors. 2009; 51(4): 528-538. doi: 10.1177/0018720809345684

Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA, USA: Mor-gan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1994.

Bouch A, Kuchinsky A, Bhatti N. Quality is in the eye of the beholder: Meeting users’ requirements for Internet quality of ser-vice. In: CHI ‘00 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Hu-man Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 2000. 297-304. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/332040.332447

Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA, USA: Mor-gan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1993.

Nah FF. A study on tolerable waiting time: How long are web users willing to wait? Behav Inf Technol. 2004; 23(3): 153-163. doi: Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/ 10.1080/01449290410001669914

Geelhoed E, Toft P, Roberts S, Hyland P. To influence time perception. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’95. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. 1995. 272-273. doi: 10.1145/223355.223670

Myers BA. The importance of percent-done progress indica-tors of computer-human interfaces. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin. 1985: 11-17. doi: 10.1145/317456.317459

Harrison C, Amento B, Kuznetsov S, Bell R. Rethinking the progress bar. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST ’07. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press; 2007. doi: 10.1145/1294211.1294231

Hurter C, Girouard A, Riche N, Plaisant C. Active progress bars : Facilitating the switch to temporary activities. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2011. Extended Abstracts Volume, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 7-12; 2011. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979883

Denis M, Kosslyn SM. Scanning visual mental images: A win-dow on the mind. Curr Psychol Cogn. 1999; 18(4): 409-465.

Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman LK. Development of an in-strument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: CHI ‘88 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1988: 213-218. doi: 10.1145/57167.57203

Downloads

Published

2019-02-01

How to Cite

Guillaume Gronier, & Alexandre Baudet. (2019). Does Progress Bars’ Behavior Influence the User Experience in Human-Computer Interaction. Psychology and Cognitive Sciences , 5(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.17140/PCSOJ-5-144

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.