Progress bar: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:48, 2 August 2016

Revision as of 22:06, 3 December 2016

Line 7:

The concept of a progress bar was invented before digital computing. In 1896 [[Karol Adamiecki]] developed a chart which he called a ''harmonogram'', which is better known today as a [[Gantt chart]]. Adamiecki did not publish his chart until 1931, however, and then only in [[Polish language|Polish]]. The chart thus now bears the name of [[Henry Gantt]] (1861–1919), who designed his chart around the years 1910-1915 and popularized it in the west.

The concept was later adopted in computing.<ref>Myers, B.A. "The importancefirst of percent-donegraphical progress indicatorsbar forappeared computer-humanin interfaces".Mitchell InL ProceedingsModel‘s of1979 thePh. SIGCHID. conferencethesis, on''Monitoring HumanSystem factorsBehavior in computinga systems.Complex CHIComputational Environment''85. ACM<ref>Model, NewMitchell YorkL, NY.''Monitoring 11System Behavior in a Complex Computational Environment'', CSL-17.79-1, Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research Center, 1979</ref> In 1985, [[Brad Myers|Brad Allan Myers]] presented a paper on “percent-done progress indicators” at a conference on computer-human interactions.<ref>Myers, B.A. "The importance of percent-done progress indicators for computer-human interfaces". In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. CHI '85. ACM, New York, NY. 11-17.</ref> Myers's research involved asking people to run database searches, some with a progress bar and some without. Those who waited whilst watching a progress bar, described an overall more positive experience. Myers concluded that the use of a progress bar reduced anxiety and was more efficient.<ref>Daniel Engber "Who Made That Progress Bar?" [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/who-made-that-progress-bar.html?_r=3].</ref>

Typically, progress bars use a linear function, such that the advancement of a progress bar is directly proportional to the amount of work that has been completed. However, varying disk, memory, processor, bandwidth and other factors complicate this estimate. Consequently, progress bars often exhibit non-linear behaviors, such as acceleration, deceleration, and pauses. These behaviors, coupled with humans' non-linear perception of time passing, produces a variable perception of how long progress bars take to complete.<ref>Harrison, C., Amento, B., Kuznetsov, S., and Bell, R. 2007. [http://chrisharrison.net/projects/progressbars/ProgBarHarrison.pdf "Rethinking the progress bar"]. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology. UIST '07. ACM, New York, NY. 115-118.</ref> However, this also means progress bars can be designed to "feel" faster. Finally, the graphical design of progress bars has also been shown to influence humans' perception of duration.<ref>Harrison, C., Yeo, Z., and Hudson, S. E. 2010. [http://chrisharrison.net/projects/progressbars2/ProgressBarsHarrison.pdf "Faster Progress Bars: Manipulating Perceived Duration with Visual Augmentations"]. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '10. ACM, New York, NY. 1545-1548.</ref>