Speed, is a minimum requirement of most systems, same as correctness.
It seems to me that basically 100% of the UI/UX developers at the big tech companies are woefully ignorant of the fact that there is a massive amount of data and papers written about human computer interaction. I'm guessing that is because few comp-sci programs even touch the topic, rather spending all their time on more esoteric/mathematical topics.
In summary, a very large number of studies were done in the 1960s-1980's on the _human_ aspects of user responsiveness (important when timesharing became common), how people learned computer interfaces, and how effective they were at operating them. Despite some of these papers being > 40 years old, none of it has really changed because the studies were about humans, less than computers. The underlying computing may have changed from a time shared terminal to a phone in someones hand connected to a server, but in that time the human cognitive loop hasn't changed.
IMHO, and somewhat backed by the science, any system which isn't responding in under 100ms is broken unless its performing something extraordinary. If its actually interactive (like typing on a command prompt) even that is far to slow. User frustration, and loss of attention are real things, and you can bet when given the choice users will pick less frustrating systems. The saving grace for many of these platforms is that the entire industry is trying to be like the fashion industry and follow the latest trends. So it doesn't matter if BigCoX makes a huge UI blunder all the others will follow it down the lemming hole.
It seems to me that basically 100% of the UI/UX developers at the big tech companies are woefully ignorant of the fact that there is a massive amount of data and papers written about human computer interaction. I'm guessing that is because few comp-sci programs even touch the topic, rather spending all their time on more esoteric/mathematical topics.
In summary, a very large number of studies were done in the 1960s-1980's on the _human_ aspects of user responsiveness (important when timesharing became common), how people learned computer interfaces, and how effective they were at operating them. Despite some of these papers being > 40 years old, none of it has really changed because the studies were about humans, less than computers. The underlying computing may have changed from a time shared terminal to a phone in someones hand connected to a server, but in that time the human cognitive loop hasn't changed.
IMHO, and somewhat backed by the science, any system which isn't responding in under 100ms is broken unless its performing something extraordinary. If its actually interactive (like typing on a command prompt) even that is far to slow. User frustration, and loss of attention are real things, and you can bet when given the choice users will pick less frustrating systems. The saving grace for many of these platforms is that the entire industry is trying to be like the fashion industry and follow the latest trends. So it doesn't matter if BigCoX makes a huge UI blunder all the others will follow it down the lemming hole.
So tell me why some of the conclusions in a paper like http://larch-www.lcs.mit.edu/~corbato/sjcc62/ (1962) are wrong. How about: http://yusufarslan.net/sites/yusufarslan.net/files/upload/co... (1968)
Amusingly other classics like https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/... are discovered regularly too (1983).