Saturday, May 25, 2019

Pros/cons of splash-screen with articifial loading delay


My firm has developed a small, domain-specific desktop GUI application. Being small, it loads fast (practically instantly) and initially presents a "home" screen, which in this app, is a kind of graphical menu. It has been suggested we introduce a 2-3 second delay in which we show some logo/splash-screen. The rationale is that this looks more professional.


What is the common wisdom on this?


Note: personally I hate this kind of screen; but I am just an engineer - the suggestion is that real users like them. So I am really looking for evidence about what users do and do not like, not just what the people on this site like.


Update: Like me, most of you dislike the artificial delay. But responses are more mixed about what users will want or accept. The story seems that, (a) people will accept a 1-2 second delay, and (b) users trust some applications better if they take their time.


But what evidence is there about this particular case of a software load-up screen? We cannot be the first company that tried this, it must have been commonplace in the 90s. Was there a backlash? Were there studies to support either view?



Answer



Management is principally seeking brand recognition. The same desire drive Coca-Cola to put their logo on everything they can buy.



If the app, when running, has a visible logo of the product or company, then you should be able to make the case that brand recognition has been served. You could probably make the case that it's better served that way, since the logo remains visible at all times, rather than only 2-3 sec.




Alternative splash screen: Call to Action


Consider what workflows are to your application. Microsoft Office applications start you at a screen that displays common templates that you can open, to begin your work. This screen includes brand content that reinforces the company and its product.


Several tabs exist, actually, making this 'splash screen' rich with usability considerations. For power users, who presumably don't like guidance in any form, the bottom of the splash screen has a checkbox to never show again with a like to the preferences window to teach how to turn it back on, too.




Generic Compromise


If the CTA option is not possible per time constraints or attitudes, and they will not relent, in the name of user experience argue that the splash screen can be ceased after it was displayed 25 times.


As a generic compromise, the workflow (user behavior) can further drive the decision for how the application behaves. A pattern used sometimes is to display a splash or other call-to-action screen only if the user opens the application via the double-clicking the app icon (or whichever similar metaphor for the OS). Compare this case to the user launching the app via opening a file associated with it.


In the latter case, the user has a directed intention, and does not want something to interrupt their focus (a splash screen). The former case involves less direction, and an intuitive argument can be made for 'trust inducing behaviors,' like a splash screen. In any of the cases, recording first-time events in the history of use can let you display notes that say why screens showed or didn't.



No comments:

Post a Comment

technique - How credible is wikipedia?

I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a res...