You are right, it is unfailingly annoying, when the system fails your expectations. That's why the second indicator should have an apologetic explanation: something like "It seems to take longer than usual...", and to provide some options to opt out from the process (perhaps to run it in the background).
The time perception for the second indicator is contextual. I don't have enough information about the user, the process being performed, the first progress indicator. Oleh On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Micah Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Use two progress indicators in a sequence: replace the first with the > second > > indicator, when delay is long. > > Hmm... that sounds a little annoying to me -- watching the first > indicator nearing it's completion and being surprised and disappointed > when the second one appears. In fact, I'd much rather have it start > slow, and then jump to the end than go to the end and start all over > again. In other words, is there a way to rig it so that it show > progress as if for the longest possible time? > > Some questions: can you know how long it's going to be? Is it two > distinct times, as you've suggested, or is it that it can take > somewhere from a few seconds to a few minutes (or whatever) to > complete, and it's random how long? > -- Oleh Kovalchuke Interaction Design is the Design of Time http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
