Response time in man-computer conversational transactions

Miller, R. B. (1968). Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I on - AFIPS '68 (Fall, part I), 9-11.

Type

Conference paper

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1968

Pages

9-11

DOI

10.1145/1476589.1476628

DOI registrant

Association for Computing Machinery

Link

https://doi.org/10.1145/1476589.1476628

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Domain-specific

• Direct Manipulation
  • The paradigm is defined here by four co-present properties: the objects and actions of interest are continuously represented in the display; actions are physical and incremental, operating on the visible representation rather than on a textual or command description of it; operations are rapidly reversible so that exploration is low-risk; and the effect of each action is immediately and perceptibly visible, closing the perception-action loop within the threshold at which a response is perceived as instantaneous — Miller (1968) puts that limit at roughly 0.1 s for response to control activation; Shneiderman's 1983 paper gives no millisecond figure, and reading the threshold as one for felt directness is a later gloss

    SupportedVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Visibility of System Status
  • Web interface design. The home turf — progress bars, loading indicators, confirmation messages, focus rings, and submit-button state changes that expose hidden processing state in time to prevent silent-failure errors like double submission. Mobile UI design. Touch-interaction feedback (tap acknowledgments, pull-to-refresh spinners, upload progress) calibrated to the small-screen, on-the-go decision context. Voice user interfaces. Spoken acknowledgments and audible status cues that make a voice assistant's hidden state legible when there is no display surface at all. AR / spatial interfaces. Status feedback embedded in the spatial scene so the user can read system state without an explicit screen. Physical-product and hardware feedback. Status LEDs, haptic confirmations, and device indicators that externalize a hardware system's running state for the operating user. Interface microcopy and confirmation-pattern design. The status text, acknowledgment delays, and confirmation conventions tuned along the sparse-versus-overwhelming calibration axis against the user's decision context. Design-system codification. The conventions packaged into Material, the Apple HIG, and Fluent, which standardize feedback-timing regimes (the 0.1 s / 1 s / 10 s windows) and status patterns across an organization's interfaces

    Supported in partVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:1b6495ce86f9 · see in the full table