| This article is very frustrating, it's full of assumptions that are stated as facts. > Most of all, it makes people perceive your site to be faster than it actually is. Remember that we are designing interfaces for use by real people. We need to give people the illusion of speed. The first claim is not backed up by evidence? At least not in this article and the claim "we need to give people the illusion of speed" makes no sense? And then for the perceived benefits of skeleton loading screens. > 1. Helps people perceive your screen to load faster Again 1. is just an assumption for all I can tell, you don't cite any research on this. > 2. Eliminates surprises As for 2, with skeleton screens there is still pretty much always a significant layout shift as it is quite uncommon for all elements to have pre-defined dimensions so the skeleton screen actual works. So it can work for some screens. But if you implement it only for some screens, users will be surprised about the differences. Hence, user is surprised? :D > 3. Gradual loading of UI – clear indication of progress As for 3, there is literally no difference in the indication of progress between this and a spinner. > 4. Shows exactly what’s loaded and what’s yet to load As for 4, see 2. |