Rethinking the progress bar

ABSTRACT

Progress bars are prevalent in modern user interfaces. Typically, a linear function is employed such that the progress of the bar is directly proportional to how much work has been completed. However, numerous factors cause progress bars to proceed at non-linear rates. Additionally, humans perceive time in a non-linear way. This paper explores the impact of various progress bar behaviors on user perception of process duration. The results are used to suggest several design considerations that can make progress bars appear faster and ultimately improve users' computing experience.

REFERENCES

• 1: Allan, L. G. (1979). The Perception of Time. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 26, pp. 340--354.
• 2: Baumgartner H., Sujan, M., and Padgett D. (1997). Patterns of Affective Reactions to Advertisements: The Integration of Moment-to-Moment Responses into Overall Judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 219--232.
• 3: Block, R. 1990. Cognitive Models of Psychological Time, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
• 4: Alex Paul Conn, Time affordances: the time factor in diagnostic usability heuristics, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.186-193, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223904.223928]
• 5: Fredrickson, B. L., and Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 45--55.
• 6: Erik Geelhoed , Peter Toft , Suzanne Roberts , Patrick Hyland, To influence time perception, Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, p.272-273, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223355.223670]
• 7: Hogan, W. H. (1978). A Theoretical Reconciliation of Competing Views of Time Perception. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 417--428.
• 8: Hosmer, D.W., and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
• 9: Langer, T., Sarin, R., and Weber, M. (2005). The Retro-spective Evaluation of Payment Sequences: Duration Neglect and Peak--And--End Effects. Journal of Eco-nomic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 58, pp. 157--175.
• 10: Brad A. Myers, The importance of percent-done progress indicators for computer-human interfaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.11-17, April 1985, San Francisco, California, United States
• 11: Redelmeier, D., and Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients' Memories of Painful Medical Treatments: Real-time and Retrospective Evaluations of Two Minimally Invasive Procedures. Pain, Vol. 66, pp. 3--8.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Graphical user interfaces (GUI)

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors

Keywords:
duration neglect, human-centric, peak-and-end, progress bar, time perception, user interface