Are 100 ms Fast Enough? Characterizing Latency Perception Thresholds in Mouse-Based Interaction
The claim that 100 ms system latency is fast enough for an optimal interaction with highly interactive computer systems has been challenged by several studies demonstrating that users are able to perceive latencies well below the 100 ms mark. Although a high amount of daily computer interactions is still characterized by mouse-based interaction, to date only few studies about latency perception thresholds have employed a corresponding interaction paradigm. Therefore, we determined latency perception thresholds in a mouse-based computer interaction task. We also tested whether user characteristics, such as experience with latency in computer interaction and interaction styles, might be related to inter-individual differences in latency perception thresholds, as results of previous studies indicate that there is considerable inter-individual variance in latency perception thresholds. Our results show that latency perception thresholds for a simple mouse-based computer interaction lie in the range of 60 ms and that inter-individual differences in latency perception can be related to user characteristics.
KeywordsLatency System response time Human-computer interaction Mouse-based interaction Latency perception
This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (03ZZ0504H) in the context of the project fast-realtime. Statements in this paper reflect the authors’ views and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding body or of the project partners.
- 3.Annett, M., Ng, A., Dietz, P.H., Bischof, W.F., Gupta, A.: How low should we go? Understanding the perception of latency while inking. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014, pp. 167–174. Canadian Information Processing Society (2014)Google Scholar
- 4.Attig, C., Rauh, N., Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: System latency guidelines then and now – is zero latency really considered necessary? In: Paper Presented at HCI International 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
- 5.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 (1991). doi: 10.1145/108844.108874
- 6.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: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1827–1836. ACM (2015). doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702300
- 10.Ivkovic, Z., Stavness, I., Gutwin, C., Sutcliffe, S.: Quantifying and mitigating the negative effects of local latencies on aiming in 3d shooter games. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 135–144. ACM (2015). doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702432
- 11.Jota, R., Ng, A., Dietz, P.H., Wigdor, D.: How fast is fast enough? A study of the effects of latency in direct-touch pointing tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2291–2300. ACM (2013). doi: 10.1145/2470654.2481317
- 13.Mackenzie, I.S., Ware, C.: Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT 1993 and CHI 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 488–493. ACM (1993). doi: 10.1145/169059.169431
- 14.Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, pp. 267–277. ACM (1968). doi: 10.1145/1476589.1476628
- 16.Ng, A., Lepinski, J., Wigdor, D., Sanders, S., Dietz, P.H.: Designing for low-latency direct-touch input. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 453–464. ACM (2012). doi: 10.1145/2380116.2380174
- 17.Pavlovych, A., Gutwin, C.: Assessing target acquisition and tracking performance for complex moving targets in the presence of latency and jitter. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2012, pp. 109–116. Canadian Information Processing Society (2012)Google Scholar
- 19.Seow, S.C.: Designing and Engineering Time: the Psychology of Time Perception in Software. Pearson Education, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
- 20.Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson, Boston (1987)Google Scholar