> should have no perceivable latency between the action and the feedback that the action was received.

Huh, according to who? I think a small delay is totally fine.

Often better than the SPA's that tried to fix this non-problem and introduced much worse problems.

Edit: For example HN: I press update and there's a small delay.. So what? Most sites and SPA's have a much worse user experience than this.

▲

nfw2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because past delays of about 100ms, users lose the sensation of directly manipulating the page. The feel of a page is part of it's aesthetic.

Also, immediate feedback reduces anxiety and mistakes (for example duplicate submissions).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391230228_Cognitive...

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-...

▲

gizzlon 2 days ago | parent [-]

Looked at the first one, and that's in a game setting? And they test 600 ms??

edit: The second one is more useful IMO. It's hard to get under 100 ms with a roundtrip, but < 300 ms should be doable, right? So you do lose the sense that you are directly manipulating data. In most cases I think that's a good trade-off. Exceptions would be things like Google docs, but that's also because it's a well made app I trust to actually sync my data without loss. Unlike most SPAs..

	▲	nfw2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		300ms for network latency both ways, with server potentially doing its own network calls for data to fulfill the request, interpolating the html, and then browser rerendering client seems like a stretch

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]