If I were designing an OS shell I would simply give the user the ability to easily make temporary text or image buffers and copy and paste content to/from them, rather than using a Notepad or a Paint.
If some app responds in 10ms or less, it is INTERACTIVE.
makes you think.
I looked it up and it is .1 seconds (100ms)
The basic advice regarding response times has been about the same for thirty years [Miller 1968; Card et al. 1991]:
- 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.
- 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.
- 10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users will then not know what to expect.
from Jakob Nielsen:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-...
less readable but the original paper:
https://www.yusufarslan.net/sites/yusufarslan.net/files/uplo...
Humans can perceive much smaller latencies.
If you look at the Card & Miller reference, at least some humans can perceive differences in ~50ms vs 100ms latencies when typing (in my limited testing, it’s likely you can!). There’s some newer research I don’t have handy that I believe found error rates decreased and NSAT improved until around at least 30ms (if not 20ms).
On that note, humans can definitely distinguish 60hz vs 120hz reliably (about 8ms faster per frame).
Even faster: with a reference (eg when dragging on a touchscreen), humans can distinguish down to at least 1ms vs 10ms of latency: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
And you can probably distinguish metronomes that are off by about 1-2ms. Much smaller for other things (like metronomes that slightly slower or faster than one another).
This is a special interest of mine XD
How'd you get that number? USB defaults to polling at 125Hz and a lot of devices go at 1000Hz (or higher). The rest of the pipeline should be a fraction of a millisecond. I guess bad debouncing hardware can add a lot more, but that's far from USB's fault.
There has been a ton of work to improve throughput, but that's often come at the cost of latency, because a great technique to improve throughput is batching, to avoid the per-task overhead cost.
We've also added many layers of abstraction.
A seminal example is Dan Luu's "computer latency" table (2017) https://danluu.com/input-lag/, which measures the time between a keypress and visible changes on the screen, and wherein an Apple IIe has latency 5x lower than a Lenovo X1 Carbon on Windows.
From some perspective, you could say that the Lenovo on Windows example is an impressive feat of engineering, considering all the subsystems involved (USB, interrupt dispatcher, input layer, windowing system, double-buffering...)
This throughput-over-latency tradeoff can be seen across the entire computer landscape design.
What’s that law called about programmers wasting all the compute on abstraction?