feedback-design
npx skills add https://github.com/bfmcneill/agi-marketplace --skill feedback-design
Agent 安装分布
Skill 文档
Feedback Design
Feedback is how software communicates with users. Good feedback creates anticipation, confirms actions, and guides recovery.
Evidence Tiers
[Research] â Peer-reviewed studies, controlled experiments
[Expert] â Nielsen Norman Group, recognized UX authorities
[Case Study] â Documented examples from major products
[Convention] â Industry practice, limited formal validation
Multiple tags = stronger evidence: [Research][Expert]
Mixed findings noted as: [Research â Mixed]
Response Time Thresholds
[Research][Expert] Jakob Nielsen, based on Miller (1968), established response time limits in Usability Engineering (1993):
| Threshold | User Perception |
|---|---|
| 0.1 sec | Feels instantaneous â direct manipulation illusion |
| 1.0 sec | Noticeable delay â user stays focused but notices wait |
| 10 sec | Attention limit â user needs progress indicator or will leave |
These thresholds are based on human perceptual abilities and remain foundational in interaction design.
Source: Nielsen Norman Group – Response Times
Progress Indicators
[Research] Dopamine research (Schultz, Sapolsky) shows the brain releases dopamine during anticipation of reward, not after. Progress indicators work because they create anticipation.
Pattern: Progress Over Spinners
Weak feedback:
Loading...
Strong feedback:
Uploading photo 3 of 7...
ââââââââââââââââ 47%
Progress creates anticipation. Spinners create uncertainty.
Skeleton Screens
[Research â Mixed Results] Skeleton screen research shows inconsistent findings:
- Mejtoft et al. (2018) found skeleton screens scored higher on perceived speed
- Viget’s study (136 participants) found skeleton screens performed worse than spinners â users took longer and evaluated wait time more negatively
When skeletons may help:
- Familiar interfaces where users know what to expect
- Very short wait times
- Slow, steady animation (not rapid motion)
When spinners may be better:
- Novel interfaces
- Longer wait times
- Users unfamiliar with the layout
Source: Viget – A Bone to Pick with Skeleton Screens
Immediate Acknowledgment
[Expert] Nielsen Norman and UX practitioners recommend immediate feedback for every user action:
| Timing | Feedback Type |
|---|---|
| 0-100ms | Visual state change (button press, hover) |
| 100ms-1s | Loading indicator if not complete |
| 1-10s | Progress indicator with status |
| 10s+ | Explanation + option to cancel |
Success Confirmation
[Convention] Acknowledge completion without over-celebrating.
Patronizing:
ð Great job! You did it! Your file was uploaded successfully!
Respectful:
File uploaded. 2.4 MB
Users need confirmation, not praise. Objective acknowledgment respects user intelligence.
Error Messages
[Expert] Nielsen’s Heuristic #9: “Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors.”
Error messages should answer three questions:
- What happened?
- Why?
- What can I do now?
Useless:
Error: Something went wrong
Actionable:
Upload failed: File exceeds 10MB limit
[Compress image] [Choose different file]
[Research] Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) supports this: vague error messages increase extraneous cognitive load, forcing users to diagnose problems instead of solving them.
Source: Nielsen Norman – Error Message Guidelines
Optimistic UI
[Convention] Update UI immediately, reconcile with server afterward.
// Optimistic: Update UI first
updateUI() // Instant feedback
sendToServer() // Background
handleFailure() // Rollback if needed
// Pessimistic: Wait for server
await sendToServer() // User waits
updateUI()
Use when:
- Success rate is very high (>99%)
- Action is reversible
- Failure can be gracefully handled
Caution: No formal research validates optimistic UI. It’s practitioner convention based on perceived performance benefits.
Sound and Haptic Feedback
[Research] Studies on haptic feedback show tactile sensations can increase engagement (Apple’s Taptic Engine research). However, overuse causes habituation.
[Convention] Use sparingly:
- Completion of significant actions
- Destructive actions requiring attention
- Errors that need immediate notice
Avoid for:
- Every button tap
- Routine navigation
- Background updates
Anti-Patterns With Research
Carousels / Auto-Rotating Sliders
Status: Generally ineffective Evidence: [Research] â Multiple studies with consistent findings
What research shows:
- Notre Dame study: 1% click-through rate; 84% of clicks on first slide only
- Search Engine Land: 0.65% CTR across B2B sites
- Adobe test: Removing slider entirely increased sales 23%
- Eye tracking (NNg): Users often skip carousels, perceiving them as ads (“banner blindness”)
Why they fail:
- Auto-rotation moves content before users can read it
- Users don’t trust rotating content (ad-like)
- Most users see only slide 1
- Creates “choice paralysis” â nothing feels primary
If you must use a carousel:
- Don’t auto-rotate (or use 7+ second intervals)
- Pause on hover/interaction
- Replace dots with meaningful labels
- Make first slide count (84% of engagement)
- Consider if static content would work better
Better alternatives:
- Static hero with clear hierarchy
- Tabbed content (user-controlled)
- Scrolling content sections
Sources:
- Orbit Media – Do Sliders Hurt Websites?
- Smashing Magazine – Better Carousel UX
- Nielsen Norman – Effective Carousels
Key Sources
- Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Academic Press.
- Miller, R.B. (1968). Response time in man-computer conversational transactions.
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving.
- Nielsen Norman Group – Response Times
- Mejtoft et al. (2018) – Skeleton Screens Study
- Viget – Skeleton Screens Research