The paper is not talking about turning non-batch jobs into batch jobs (or batch jobs at all really), it is just an aside where they insert magic marketing numbers to sound good. Presumably for practical reasons they would consider the response "batch job started" to be the complete response. I think we can at least agree that it is unhelpful to call an unavoidably long task bad design just for being unavoidably long.
Nothing in the paper suggests that making tasks avoidably long is ok if the system gives an indication it is doing something.
> Nothing in the paper suggests that making tasks avoidably long is ok if the system gives an indication it is doing something.
I can agree with that statement as written, but there are a couple of minor issues with your framing here. One, I didn’t suggest that making tasks avoidably long is okay. I can see why I might appear to have hinted in that direction, but your summary, especially inserting the word “avoidably”, is not a generous interpretation of my words, and I was explicit from the start about stating that I’m not a fan of CSS transitions and not defending the design choices of the Laws of UX site. Two, you already know the context of this paper is 1980, when the alternative to what they actually mean by “complete response” is a blinking terminal cursor that doesn’t move. They’re not talking about partial response of some kind, and they are considering “batch job started” to be a complete response. In that sense, and in the context of the time the paper was written, it is very much suggesting that more quickly giving an indication that it’s doing something is the goal.
Beyond this paper, the broad idea of fast response in the UI/UX and web world has adopted the idea that showing acknowledgement of input very quickly is important. There are multiple examples of this in the nearby threads, and many hundreds of papers beyond Doherty’s that discuss these topics and demonstrate the humans perceptually prefer to see fast reactions even when the final result takes a while.
It might also be worth pointing out that for the arrow buttons on the Laws of UX site, the animation itself literally is the “complete response”. The function of the button is to trigger the animation. Animations are really out of the scope of Doherty’s paper, their idea of a “complete response” in 1980 was a line of text that could display at once.
This is where we disagree. The animation is exactly what I mean by "avoidably long". It interrupts the user the same way the long response times mentioned in the paper do. If you quote this paper, expect people to say that it means what it clearly states since this is a source of real frustration for many of us. As I mentioned earlier, some people do appreciate a more paced "experience", but many of us never want such an experience from a website and just want rapid response.
Yes, the length of animation is a design choice, and is in that sense avoidable — precisely because the length of time the animation plays was a conscious intent. What you’re talking about is not related to what Doherty’s paper was talking about.
The paper talks about launching batch jobs. How does that fit into your interpretation of a "complete response"? What would the complete response to starting a batch job have been in 1982?
> I didn't use a mainframe in 1982 but I wouldn't be surprised if the experience was more responsive than what is common today.
I did use mainframe terminals in high school and college, and they were nowhere near the responsiveness that is common today. Not in the same ballpark, not even on the same planet. Our expectations for responsiveness have grown as fast as response times have shrunk, computing today is orders of magnitude more responsive across the board.
> Don't try to trick yourself that the system is actually responding quickly when it really isn't.
That sounds pretty catchy, but is completely subjective, it depends on what you mean by response, which is what we are trying to flesh out here. I'm trying to make the case that in the context of UI/UX best practices this is a red herring. The questions are about interaction and expectations, about acknowledging your input, not about whether computers can magically perform impossible feats of physics. Speed of light prevents some servers on earth from getting a response to you in under 100ms. I do tasks all the time that takes seconds or minutes, and I bet you do too. I disagree that long tasks are automatically bad UX. Bad UX is failing to notify you that you started a task, or failing to notify you that a task finished. Bad UX is giving no indication of how long a very long task will take. Bad UX does not automatically exist merely because a task takes time.