User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After asking the question Will faster GUI always make one more efficient?, I understood that there is a lower limit to the amount of time lost due to the GUI not responding. My interpretation of the answer is that below 50-100 ms will have a neglectable effect. Now I am interested to know whether there are any studies on longer waiting times. I would be especially interested for in the ranges from 10 seconds up to 20 minutes, which were not covered by the study referred to by edeverett in his answer to the other question. I am interested in cases where the waiting time is happening on random so the users do not get used to it.

share|improve this question
Can you give an example of where waiting time would be random? I work a lot with EDA tools, and they can have waits from a few seconds to several hours, but the times are hardly random. – James Crook Jun 6 '11 at 20:04
@James Crook. Opening Outlook on an ovetloaded Exchange server can take anything from seconds to half an hour. It certainly feels random, at least. – David Jun 6 '11 at 21:15
Great example. I'm on the same wavelength now. – James Crook Jun 6 '11 at 21:18
A bit off-topic but I never understood why anyone would run Outlook without cached mode enabled. It starts instantly and doesn't block user input while trying to establish its connections... – Oskar Duveborn Aug 19 '11 at 11:32

Related questions have mentioned which says users have to reorient themselves to the task if the waiting time is over 10 seconds. As I understand it the theoretical basis for the 10-second figure is that short-term memory decays in the 2 to 10 second range (or the user's attention wanders and pushes other things into working memory, depending on the psychological theory you subscribe to.) Once the user is back on task they use long-term memory and the information presented by the UI to figure out where they were.

I don't know what theoretical basis there would be for a threshhold in the 10 second to 20 minute range. I have heard two minutes suggested as a guideline where a different type of feedback is called for (e.g. notification instead of progress bar) but I think that was motivated by the idea that users would rather multi-task than wait that long.

share|improve this answer

Once I did a conversion from Lotus 123 to MS Access of some workflow database forms. The user were typically spending 6 hours on registering all the data in one particular work flow when using Lotus 123. After I had converted to MS Access, he used half hour on the same job! This was basically just converting everything bit by bit without restructuring anything. It did all in the same way and GUI look in the new version. It was just the difference in response time in the two systems that caused the big difference.

share|improve this answer

Depending on what you do I'd say that wait times are not a big problem but reminding the user once an action is complete can be very important.

Triggering a visual alarm after the action finishes could let the user react pretty fast after an event and improve performance.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.