Advertisement

System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero Latency Really Considered Necessary?

  • Christiane Attig
  • Nadine Rauh
  • Thomas Franke
  • Josef F. Krems
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10276)

Abstract

Latency or system response time (i.e., the delay between user input and system response) is a fundamental factor affecting human-computer interaction (HCI). If latency exceeds a critical threshold, user performance and experience get impaired. Therefore, several design guidelines giving recommendations on maximum latencies for an optimal user experience have been developed within the last five centuries. Concentrating on the lower boundary latencies, these guidelines are critically reviewed and contrasted with recent empirical findings. Results of the review reveal that latencies below 100 ms were seldom considered in guidelines so far even though smaller latencies have been shown to be perceivable to the user and impact user performance negatively. Thus, empirical evidence suggests a need for updated guidelines for designing latency in HCI.

Keywords

System response time Latency User experience Design guidelines Human-computer interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Annett, M.: The fundamental issues of pen-based interaction with tablet devices. Dissertation, University of Alberta (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annett, M., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Bischof, W., Gupta, A.: How low should we go? Understanding the perception of latency while inking. In: Graphics Interface Conference 2014, 7–9 May, Montreal, Canada, pp. 167–174. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boucsein, W.: Forty years of research on system response times – what did we learn from it? In: Schlick, C.M. (ed.) Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, pp. 575–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01293-8_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brady, K., Wu, B., Sim, S.H., Enquobahrie, A., Ortiz, R., Arikatla, S.: Modeling reduced user experience caused by visual latency. In: Soares, M., Falcão, C., Ahram, T.Z. (eds.) Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 267–277. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41685-4_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler, T.W.: Computer response time and user performance. In: Janda, A. (ed.) CHI 1983, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 58–62. ACM, New York (1983). doi: 10.1145/800045.801581
  6. 6.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Card, S.K., Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D.: The information visualizer, an information workspace. In: CHI 1991, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 181–186. ACM, New York (1991). doi: 10.1145/108844.108874
  8. 8.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer, Dordrecht (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dabrowski, J., Munson, E.V.: 40 Years of searching for the best computer system response time. Interact. Comput. 23, 555–564 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deber, J., Jota, R., Forlines, C., Wigdor, D.: How much faster is fast enough? User perception of latency & latency improvements in direct and indirect touch. In: CHI 2015, April 18–23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, pp. 1827–1836. ACM, New York (2015). doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702300
  11. 11.
    Doherty, R.A., Sorenson, P.: Keeping users in the flow: mapping system responsiveness with user experience. Proc Man 3, 4384–4391 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.436 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer, A.R.H., Blommaert, F.J.J., Midden, C.J.H.: Monitoring and evaluation of time delay. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 19, 163–180 (2005). doi: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1902_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forch, V., Franke, T., Rauh, N., Krems, J.F.: Are 100 milliseconds fast enough? Characterizing latency perception thresholds in mouse-based interaction. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vancouver, Canada, 9–14 July 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friston, S., Karlström, P., Steed, A.: The effects of low latency on pointing and steering tasks. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22, 1605–1615 (2015). doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2446467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodman, T.J., Spence, R.: The effect of computer system response time on interactive computer aided problem solving. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 12, 100–104 (1978). doi: 10.1145/965139.807378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ivkovic, Z., Stavness, I., Gutwin, C., Sutcliffe, S.: Quantifying and mitigating the negative effects of local latencies on aiming in 3D shooter games. In: CHI 2015, April 18–23, 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, pp. 135–144. ACM, New York (2015). doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702432
  17. 17.
    Jagacinski, R.J., Flach, J.M.: Control Theory for Humans. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jota, R., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Wigdor, D.: How fast is fast enough? a study of the effects of latency in direct-touch pointing tasks. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013 Conference on Human Factors in Computing, April 27–May 2, 2013, Paris, France, pp. 2291–2300. ACM, New York (2013). doi: 10.1145/2470654.2481317
  19. 19.
    Kaaresoja, T., Brewster, S., Lantz, V.: Towards the temporally perfect virtual button: touch-feedback simultaneity and perceived quality in mobile touchscreen press interactions. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 11, 9:1–9:25 (2014). doi: 10.1145/2611387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaaresoja, T.: Latency guidelines for touchscreen virtual button feedback. Dissertation, University of Glasgow (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mäki-Patola, T., Hämäläinen, P.: Latency tolerance for gesture controlled continuous sound instrument without tactile feedback. In: International Computer Music Conference Proceedings, 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martens, J., Franke, T., Rauh, N., Krems, J.F.: Effects of low-range latency on performance and perception in a virtual, unstable second-order control task (2016). Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the AFIPS 1968, December 9–11, 1968, pp. 267–277. ACM, New York (1968). doi: 10.1145/1476589.1476628
  24. 24.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, San Diego (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng, A., Annett, M., Dietz, P., Gupta, A., Bischof, W.F.: In the blink of an eye: investigating latency perception during stylus interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1103–1112. ACM, New York (2014). doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557037
  26. 26.
    Ng, A., Dietz, P.H.: The effects of latency and motion blur on touch screen user experience. J. SID 22, 449–456 (2015). doi: 10.1002/jsid.243 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ng, A., Lepinski, J., Wigdor, D., Sanders, S., Dietz, P.: Designing for low-latency direct-touch input. In: UIST 2012, October 7–10, 2012, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 453–464 (2012). doi: 10.1145/2380116.2380174
  28. 28.
    Nordahl, R.: Self-induced footsteps sounds in virtual reality: latency, recognition, quality and presence. In: The 8th Annual International Workshop on Presence, PRESENCE 2005, Conference Proceedings, 21–23 September 2005, London, United Kingdom, pp. 353–355 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seow, S.C.: Designing and Engineering Time: The Psychology of Time Perception in Software. Addison-Wesley Professional, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shneiderman, B.: Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. Comput. Surv. 16, 265–285 (1984). doi: 10.1145/2514.2517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading (1987)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tolia, N., Andersen, D.G., Satyanarayanan, M.: Quantifying interactive user experience on thin clients. Computer 39(3), 46–52 (2006). doi: 10.1109/MC.2006.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weinberg, S.: Learning effectiveness: the impact of response time. ACM SIGSOC Bull. 13, 140 (1981). doi: 10.1145/1015579.810983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., Parasuraman, R.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Routledge, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou, R., Shao, S., Li, W., Zhou, L.: How to define the user’s tolerance of response time in using mobile applications. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 281–285. (2016). doi: 10.1109/IEEM.2016.7797881

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Attig
    • 1
  • Nadine Rauh
    • 1
  • Thomas Franke
    • 2
  • Josef F. Krems
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Cognitive and Engineering PsychologyChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive ErgonomicsUniversität zu LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations