Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#Actualway2lazy2care

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:25 PM

Like slicer4ever says, it's because the progress bar is calculated by dividing the current item index with the total number of items. If each item consumes the same amount of time, that's fine. But that's usually not the case.
 
You can make it look better by using a preprocess step or another metric (bytes when downloading, for instance), but most don't.

I feel like there was a study somewhere that looked at progress bars and something about it being there and not static was just as useful as it being accurate to most users. I think it's a TCR for Windows Store Apps (edit: Non-static loading screens I mean).

#1way2lazy2care

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:24 PM

Like slicer4ever says, it's because the progress bar is calculated by dividing the current item index with the total number of items. If each item consumes the same amount of time, that's fine. But that's usually not the case.
 
You can make it look better by using a preprocess step or another metric (bytes when downloading, for instance), but most don't.

I feel like there was a study somewhere that looked at progress bars and something about it being there and not static was just as useful as it being accurate to most users. I think it's a TCR for Windows Store Apps.

PARTNERS