Remember when your mother told you that first impressions count? Web design is finally getting to that point. Whether it is because Internet use has moved far enough across the chasm to attract more of the late adopters looking for a "user experience," or because sites have improved enough that the global frustration with poor usability no longer trumps the first impression of the site, site designers are beginning to appreciate that mom was right. First impressions count again. The shift toward emotional design reflects one of the most interesting and exciting trends in Web development so far. It will present new challenges. It will also bring old ones back into sharper focus.
One of the chronic challenges that will be highlighted by emotional design is site download speed. There are many sources of delay in Web site and application delivery. Some, such as increased Internet congestion or connection speed, are outside the control of the designer. However, other causes of delay such as page/graphic size, server-task prioritization, and incremental page presentation, are within the control of the designer and implementation team. Thus, one challenge for successful emotional designs will be creating sites that balance visually compelling and task-rich resources with quick delivery.
Speed of download is not a new problem for Web designers. Weinberg (2000) estimated that $4 billion in potential e-commerce revenue is lost each year because of download delays. But how, specifically, do delays figure into user frustration and site abandonment?
In an attempt to find alternative approaches to compare usability testing and expert review, Muller, Dayton and Root (1993) reanalyzed the findings from four studies (Desurvire, Condziela, and Atwood, 1992; Jeffries and Desurvire, 1992; Jeffries, Miller Wharton and Uyeda, 1991; and Karat, Campbell and Fiegel, 1992). Rather than looking at the raw number of problems identified by each technique, their re-analysis categorized the findings of the previous studies on parameters such as:
Again, their re-analysis demonstrated no stable difference indicating that either usability testing or heuristic review (conducted by human factors professionals) is a superior technique.
An array of methodological inconsistencies makes interpreting the findings in toto even more challenging. The specific types of interfaces or tasks used in comparison vary widely from study to study. Many studies do not clearly articulate what the "experts" are expected to do to come up with their findings (much less, what they really DO). The specific heuristics applied are rarely specified clearly. The level of expertise of the evaluators is rarely described or clearly equated, although it is often offered informally as a factor in the diversity of outcomes. As such, it is possible that, among other things, the conclusions of specific studies falsely favor a method, when relative benefits really result from the broader and deeper experience of the individual implementing the method (Johns, 1994).
Actually, determining just how long someone will wait is an old problem in the service industry. Years and years of research have been dedicated to determining how waiting for service effects customers' perception of both the product and service provider. The fundamental finding of this work is reflected in Maister's First Law of Service:
Service = Perception ‚Äď Expectation
In other words, customers develop positive feelings when the perceived service exceeds the expected service. With respect to delays, users are happy when the site responds as quickly, or more quickly, than they expected, and they become frustrated when the site is slower than they expected. But how long is too long to wait for a Web site?
Many groups of researchers have set out to define how delays impact users' perception of interactive sites. Not surprisingly, these studies show that users faced with long, unexplained delays during the course of interactions are dissatisfied. But how long is too long? And what is the real impact of perceived delay?
Waiting is frustrating, demoralizing, aggravating, annoying, time consuming, and incredibly expensive. ‚ÄĒ FEDEX Commercial
Sears, Jacko, and Borella (1997) created two versions of a Web site (text-only and text-plus-graphics) to examine the effects of content displayed and download delay on perceived usefulness. In this study, participants experienced delays ranging from 0.58 to 6.80 seconds and then rated sites on perceived usefulness, organization and quality of information. Users ratings reflected sensitivity to the delay for both the text-only and text-plus-graphics sites. However, ratings for text-only pages were lower than text-plus-graphics pages even at the shortest delay intervals suggesting that participants expected text-only pages to render more quickly than graphics intensive pages.
Ramsay, Barbesi, and Preece (1998) examined the effect of fixed-download delays, site type, and page style on perceived interestingness of content and ease-of-scanning. Along with delay time, they varied types of site content (scientific, business, advertisement, personal, history, instructional and entertainment) and page styles (text only, graphics with few links, balanced text and links). The delays in their experiment ranged from two seconds to two minutes. Sites with long delays were rated significantly less interesting and more difficult to scan independent of the content presented. In addition, page style did not influence the perceptions: participants expected graphics-heavy sites to respond as quickly as text sites.
Boredom results from being attentive to the passage of time itself. ‚ÄĒ William James
Bhatti, Bouch, and Kuchinsky (2000) report a study, and related guidelines for server design, based on work exploring factors moderating Quality of Service (QoS) perceptions on e-commerce sites. For their study, Bhatti and colleagues developed an ecologically valid, yet quantifiable, task by artificially injecting download delays (ranging from 2 to 73 seconds) as participants completed a set of common tasks on a live Web site. They designed the study so that the primary task of configuring and purchasing a home computer system could be broken down into a series of subtasks by purchasing components separately. They evaluated the impact of download delay by having participants rate the tolerability of delay for each page after it had completed rendering. In a critical comparison, Bhatti and colleagues varied page presentation by having pages render either completely or incrementally. Pages rendered incrementally first displayed the page banner, followed by text and then graphics.
Consistent with previous work, Bhatti and colleagues noted that participants in the complete-rendering condition started to judge delays unacceptable at roughly 10 seconds. This is consistent with previous work in applied attention and cognition suggesting that after 10 seconds or more of wait time, the boundaries of the current 'unit task' are broken (Card, Moran, and Newell, 1983). Simply put, after 10 seconds we get bored with waiting and start to look for something else to do. As a result we lose our place in the task and sometimes even forget what we were doing.
Critically, however, Bhatti and colleagues observed a significant difference between the complete and incremental rendering conditions in their study. Participants in the incremental rendering group tolerated up to 6 times more delay. They suggest that incremental loading helps users keep their attention on the task at hand (rather than redirecting it to the task of reevaluating the Quality of Service.)
The studies outlined above converge with other findings to suggest that 10 seconds is about the edge of too long. However, this is not necessarily a hard rule. Willingness to wait is moderated by other factors. For instance, novice users and older individuals tend to be willing to wait longer for a computer to react (Schneiderman, 1998, and Selvidge, 2003, respectively). In addition, users who have little or no experience with high bandwidth connections are more patient (Selvidge, 2003). Users tend to be relatively more patient the first few times they visit a site (Bhatti, 2000). Finally, users will wait longer in the service of completing important tasks. However, these same users report higher frustration levels than counterparts who experience the same delay in completing less important tasks (Ceaparu, Lazar, Bessiere, Robinson, and Schneiderman, 2002). In this last case, willingness to wait may indicate that the user feels trapped rather than satisfied.
This brings us to Maister's Second Law of Service:
It's hard to play catch-up ball.
That is, any impression (or halo effect) created early in a service encounter will color the rest of the interaction. As such, since not all delay is under the control of the designer (e.g., user's connection speed), it is important to consider (and test!) download speeds even if you are designing for a more tolerant group. Indeed, the previously mentioned literature on perceived quality in the (physical) service sector clearly shows that the largest payback for effort and attention spent in improving the interaction occurs from improving the perception of the early stages of the interaction ‚ÄĒ reducing the waiting time (Maister, 1985).
In summary, perceived delays in site presentation undermines users' evaluation of the site. Users systematically rate slower sites as less interesting (Ramsay, Barbesi, and Preece 1998) and having lower quality content (Jacko, Sears, and Borella, 2000). In addition they report that delays interfere with task continuity, their ability to remember the site, and use flow (Shubin and Meehan, 1997). Exceedingly slow sites can lead users to believe an error has occurred (Lazar and Norico, 2000). Finally, users correlate site performance and security: Chronically slow sites are considered to be less secure resources for purchase (Bhatti, Bouch, and Kuchinsky, 2000).
In the face of increased pressure to create visually compelling designs, these findings highlight the importance of balancing performance factors with emotion.
Bhatti, N., Bouch, A. and Kuchinsky, Allan. (2000). Integrating User-Perceived Quality into Web Server Design. Computer Networks (33), 1-16.
Card, S. K. , Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
Ceaparu, I., Lazar, J. Bessiere, K., Robinson, J. and Schneiderman, B. (2002-Draft). Determining Causes and Severity of End-User Frustration.
Lazar, J. and Norcio, A. (2000). System and Training Design for End-User Error. In S. Clarke and Be Lehaney (Eds), Human Centered Methods in Information Systems: Current Research and Practice, 76-90. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Maister, D. (1985). The psychology of waiting lines. Eds. J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon and C. Suprenant. Lexington Books.
Ramsay, J. Barbesi, A. and Preece, J. (1998). A psychological investigation of long retrieval times on the World Wide Web. Interacting with Computers, 10, 77-86.
Schneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human Computer Interaction. (3rd Ed). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sears, A., Jacko, J. (2000). Understanding the relation between network quality of service and the usability fob distributed multimedia documents. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1), 43-68.
Selvidge, P. (2003). Examining Tolerance for Online Delays. Usability News 5.1.
Schubin, H. and Meehan, M. (1997). Navigation in Web applications. Interactions 4(6). 13-17.
Weinberg, B. D. (2000). Don't keep your Internet customers waiting too long at the (virtual) front door, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(1), 30-39.
The Aug. '03 Update was very interesting. We all know that "slow is bad," but some of the specific relationships between expectations, perceptions and reality are eye-opening ‚Äď for example, the perception that slow sites are less secure. I hadn't heard that one before. The August update made me think of two other studies that neither patently agree nor disagree but, rather, support the notion we hear a lot in usability land: It Depends. More...
Good summary, you neglected to mention/cite my new book, "Speed Up Your Site: Web Site Optimization" which is all about this subject and cites the papers you cite (and other newer ones). The first chapter is devoted to this subject (summarizes and distills current research)
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ‚Äúcookies‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúweb beacons‚ÄĚ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users‚Äô PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ‚Äúdummy‚ÄĚ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users‚Äô experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI‚Äôs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI‚Äôs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant ‚Äėper module‚Äô processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.