15

System performance as usability catastrophe

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A brief discussion about how system performance in terms of user interface fluidity impacts user experience, and how this important factor can be better prioritized by designers, software engineers and project managers.

Citation preview

Page 1: System performance as usability catastrophe
Page 2: System performance as usability catastrophe
Page 3: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  am  I  talking  about?  Let’s  take  a  look  at  some  examples  

h<p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyA6UXi0v6g  

Page 4: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  am  I  talking  about?    

h<p://xkcd.com/612/  

Page 5: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  am  I  talking  about?    

h<p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxtYxIObjWg  

Page 6: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  am  I  talking  about?    

h<p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfnM_8JBmmA  

Page 7: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  am  I  talking  about?    

h<p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apN0_NQrC0s  

Page 8: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  do  all  these  examples  have  in  common?    

Page 9: System performance as usability catastrophe

What  do  all  these  examples  have  in  common?    

Page 10: System performance as usability catastrophe

What’s  so  special  about  it?  (from  a  user’s  perspec>ve)  

 

TIME   (aka  a  temporal  sequence  of  events)    

•  “HCI  impedance  mismatch”  (my  phrase)  –  user’s  ac.ons  are  too  fast  for  the  system,  system’s  responses  are  too  slow  for  the  user  

•  Without  immediate  feedback,  user  error  is  introduced—they  click  bu<ons  mul.ple  .mes,  try  to  swipe  mul.ple  .mes,  try  to  close  unresponsive  apps  even  if  they  are  not  actually  frozen,  poten.ally  leading  to  data  loss,  etc.  

•  When  things  don’t  work  smoothly,  users  are  reminded  that  they  are  “using  a  computer”,  sense  of  magic/fun  decreases,  sense  of  control  decreases,  frustra.on  increases  

•  Unresponsive  apps  violate  4  of  Nielsen’s  10  usability  heuris>cs  (Visibility  of  system  status,  match  with  real  world  (real  objects  don’t  stu<er/freeze),  user  control/freedom,  error  preven.on.)  

Page 11: System performance as usability catastrophe

What’s  so  special  about  it?  (from  an  interac>on  designer’s  perspec>ve)  

 

TIME   (aka  a  temporal  sequence  of  events)    

•  Difficult  to  portray  .me-­‐sensi.ve  interac.ons  in  sta>c  mockups,  or  even  in  higher-­‐level  prototypes  

•  Time-­‐based  performance  characteris.cs  are  invisible  and  unpredictable,  which  makes  it  hard  to  iden.fy  them  as  “features”  or  “defects”  

•  UI  performance  considera.ons  are  largely  qualita>ve  in  nature  –  the  answer  to  the  ques.on  of  “what’s  good  enough?”  varies  widely  

•  Because  of  their  invisible  and  qualita.ve  nature,  UI  performance  characteris.cs  tend  to  rate  low  on  the  list  of  managers’  and  programmers’  priori.es  

Page 12: System performance as usability catastrophe

What’s  so  special  about  it?  (from  a  soMware  developer’s  perspec>ve)  

 

TIME   (aka  a  temporal  sequence  of  events)    

•  Notoriously  difficult  to  handle  unpredictable  .me  values  in  code  –event/callback-­‐driven  asynchronous  programming  is  easy  to  screw  up  (or  is  avoided  due  to  fear  of  complexity,  lack  of  understanding)  •  Race  condi.ons  •  Error  handling  issues  •  “Feedback  loops”  •  Execu.ng  on  UI  thread  •  Asynchronous  APIs  are  harder  to  understand  and  debug  

•  Difficult  to  pin  down  sources  of  performance  issues  •  UI  toolkit  weaknesses  (e.g.  Flash,  HTML5)  •  Difficult  to  judge  real-­‐world  performance  characteris.cs  because  developers’  machines  tend  to  be  high-­‐spec’d  

Page 13: System performance as usability catastrophe

So  what  can  we  do  about  it?  1.  Acknowledge  that  UI  performance  characteris.cs  are  a  key  

component  of  user  experience.  Designers  can’t  be  sa.sfied  with  sta.c  mockups  alone.  Developers  can’t  be  sa.sfied  with  simply  “looking  like”  a  design.  

2.  No  “designing  it  and  then  dropping  it  off  at  the  programmers’  feet”.  Designers  need  to  work  closely  with  developers  and  test  itera>ons  in  >ght  cycles—that’s  what  UCD  is  all  about!  

3.  Enough  >me  needs  to  be  devoted  to  fine-­‐tuning  UI  performance.  It  should  be  a  key  ongoing  task  for  developers  and  testers,  not  an  aqerthought.  

4.  Programmers  need  to  wrap  their  heads  around  asynchronous  APIs  and  event-­‐driven  programming,  if  they  haven’t  already.  

5.  In  cases  where  performance  can’t  be  directly  improved,  don’t  keep  the  user  wai>ng  –  show  some  kind  of  progress  indica.on,  use  cached  content  liberally,  and  don’t  block  the  UI  (thread)!    

Page 14: System performance as usability catastrophe

Thanks  for  listening!  and  now  it’s  .me  for  some  Q&A  /  discussions!  

Michael  Klein  [email protected]  h<p://gplus.to/michaelklein27  h<p://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelklein3  @mischkl  

Page 15: System performance as usability catastrophe

Links  Jakob  Nielsen,  Response  Times:  The  3  Important  Limits  h<p://www.nngroup.com/ar.cles/response-­‐.mes-­‐3-­‐important-­‐limits/  

Jakob  Nielsen,  Website  Response  Times  h<p://www.nngroup.com/ar.cles/website-­‐response-­‐.mes/  

Steven  Seow,  Designing  and  Engineering  Time  (Book)  h<p://www.engineering.me.com  

Steven  Seow,  User  Interface  Timing  Cheatsheet  h<p://www.stevenseow.com/papers/UI%20Timing%20Cheatsheet.pdf  

GNOME  Human  Interface  Guidelines  2.2.2,  Characteris>cs  of  Responsive  Applica>ons  h<p://developer.gnome.org/hig-­‐book/3.5/feedback-­‐responsiveness.html