Forum Moderators: open
This paragraph appears about half way through the article --
You have undoubtedly heard that users give up because pages take too long to download. This is also a myth. Testing shows no correlation between page download time and users giving up.Usability Myths Article [uie.com]
What is your experience? Is the fast download idea really a myth?
That's what my own studies show, and I'm backed up by many others. Long download times have always been bad, and they are still bad. Sure, people get better connections, but their expectations get higher too. If someone else is offering the same content, then most people will not sit and wait for your page to load if it takes too long.
A lot depends on what kind of site we're talking about, I'm sure. And even more, how the user finds the site. If they were motivated by some off line information to type in the URL, I'll bet that the wait can be a lot longer than if they arrive from a search engine.
I must admit that the teaser article worked for me - at least to the point of checking out wher the nearest UIE Roadshow was scheduled.
I firmly believe download times matter a great deal.
That said, what's being downloaded may change the acceptable time limit.
If I have to wait more than 3 - 5 seconds for a download on any site I get suspicious. If it's a new site (from a search engine e.g.) I won't wait and mark it off as non-functional.
Something has to happen immediately to let me know the link was valid.
I do think that some of the "truths" I've heard are weak -- for instance, you must have usable content on the screen in under 3 seconds.
Agreed! Sometimes that is even impossible, especially if someone is on a dial-up in another country. There's no way you can be sure to present something to them in three seconds. Well, maybe occasionally...
Ten seconds sounds like a good limit. If nothing else, you can always see the progress bar moving, and that's a good sign that the content will soon be downloaded :)
Something has to happen immediately...
Well, that depends on your connection. You can hardly expect that if you're sitting on a 28.8K modem ;)
Like I said earlier - the better connection, the higher expectations.
...you can always see the progress bar moving...
I'd agree with that. It's lack of apparent response from the server that puts me off very quickly. When it comes to page design, I may like it more if it's a fast download (and hence feel more positive about the site) but I will wait if I know I'm getting data.
Pages that hang waiting for a third party ad server, or even worse, an external tracking service - those are the worst. I even get bugged when the server for the WebmasterWorld graphics is slow. And if the page can't render at all until some slugish server responds, the site has really been undermined.
I do think that some of the "truths" I've heard are weak -- for instance, you must have usable content on the screen in under 3 seconds.
The question is how is "usable content" defined?
And is the useable factor as important as the "visual" aspect.
Seeing a blank page staring back at me is less assuring than seeing at least a header appear. Getting content that provides real info to read while I'm waitng for an image to load is better in my mind.
On image-light pages where the real target is the readable content, then the content appearing quickly is a high priority, it seems to me.
What I find the most unacceptable is waiting for content to load, because the page is loaded up with navigation or site branding images, or other stuff that slow it down. I came for content, get it to me as fast as possible.
Once I see something I'll wait for the download. If all I see is the status bar going and a white page, I'm outta there pretty quick.
