What are Progress bars?
Progress Bar
A progress bar or progress indicator is a game element which provides feedback to the player in a graphical format that pertains to the advancement to completion of a singular challenge or collection of tasks. Progress bars are on the lowest level of Kevin Werbach’s pyramid of game elements [1]. Werbach places progress bars at t
he bottom of the pyramid signifying their basic purpose, to enable the game designer to achieve the higher level game mechanics. Regarding the EGC category of gamification design elements [2] progress bars can be classified as a systematic aggregate counting feedback element. As the variations of the visualization of information can affect the players’ perception of the task progress bars may have repercussive effects on attitudes and behaviors towards a gamified system depending on their design and implementation. Progress bars are important in systems as the feedback provides information for meaningful play an integral component to the discipline of gamification [3]. Furthermore, progress bars may be used to drive behavior rather than being merely a progress indicator deriving from a human psychological desire for completion.
Benefits of the progress bar
The value of progress bars in the computer-human interface was documented by Brad Myers in 1985. Myers’ found a that the presence of progress bars decreased anxiety, increased efficiency and resulted in a more positive experience for players interacting with the virtual world. [3]
Even in the physical world aggregate counting feedback elements have been widely used by merchants to influence buyer behavior. In order to increase sale frequency or build loyalty leading to desired habit formation it is common for coffee vendors to give out and stamp a loyalty card with a final reward for collecting or completing a set number of stamps. This physical card can be seen as a progress indicator showing the progress attained and the further progress needed.
The progress bar is a valuable tool in the game designer’s tool kit as it allows the designer to influence the player’s desire of completion along with the perception of performing a meaningful, attainable, yet challenging task. So although the most apparent game mechanic that builds off progress indicators is feedback this can further be built upon to enhance senses of achievement and meaning which results in increased engagement.
Strategies of the progress bar
Textual features
The addition of textual information adds to the amount of feedback derived from the progress bar. If stages of progress can be identified a combination of formats can be employed, such as, text on the bar denoting the current stage of progress, the completed stages, or the stages yet to be completed. In systems where it is more appropriate that progress is not split into stages it is common to see a percentage counter or a marked gauge mirroring the filling of the progress bar.
Text can also be incorporated into the design of the progress bar by allowing the system to communicate with the player. Along with words that seemingly encourage or sympathize with the player text can also provide more information about the process thus humanizing the gamified system and keeping the player more engaged. The decision to have this feature may affect the perception of progress.
Graphical and design features
Along the lines of conveying more information than 
just a plain bar graphical features included in the design of a progress bar may also enhance user experience or feedback.
Embezzlements such as a race car at the leading edge of the progress counter heading towards the finish line at the end of the bar can provide a meaningful illustration of the task at hand. Avatars and customizations are useful in personalization and can be a consideration for user engagement for this design element.
Changing colors of the progress element may also change to signify developments or other peripheral changes and events in the wider game.
Another consideration to keep in mind for features of a progress bar is the shape of the indicator. Commonly horizontal bars can also assume but not limited to, a vertical shape like a thermometer, cyclic like a clock, or radiating outwards from a central point.
Progress bars and the desire for completion
Apart from a mere indicator of progress it is of note that the progress bar can be the driver the user to accomplish the task in some instances. Using the incremental filling of the bar to break down the task into attainable segments can act as motivation in the psychological desire for completion [4]. An extension of this strategy is a head start, freebie, or XP multiplier which helps the player reach completion by starting the bar greater than zero, giving away free progress points, or allowing opportunities for accelerated advancement respectively.
It has been suggested that the release of endorphins associated with finishing a task is correlated to the completion of a progress bar. Therefore, this desire to complete and obtain the endorphin release can influence intrinsically satisfaction or motivation [5].
End-points in progress bars
The presence of a definitive end-point to a task means that linear bar shaped progress indicators are commonly used to show the progress of downloads, XP points, and distance to goal. Conversely indicators may also show progress in tasks the no definitive end-point known as indeterminate progress bars. Indicators portraying this fundamental conceptual difference in the perception of an end-point therefore have variations in design and usefulness, most noticeably in shape, such as the Mac OS rainbow pinwheel or other cyclic loading indicators
. 
Movement
Design of progress bars have been shown to influence the perception of time and work elapsed [6]. Harrison et al’s research shows how moving graphics such as ripples or flashes can shorten the perception of time taken for a linear process such as a file download to complete. A bar showing a ripple effect moving counter to the movement of the progress counter or a flashing bar that pulsates quicker as progress continues seem to reach completion faster than a non-illustrated bar.
Harrison et al has further research which shows how varying the speed of attainment of progress on the progress indicator can influence perceived time taken for completion [7]. In tests which bars take the same time to fill it was found that people perceive that bars which starts slower and speed up as reaching completion faster overall. In an observation known as “peak effect” it was found that bars with pauses are perceived to take longer as once a maximum speed has been experienced everything else just seems to be slower. Finally, both these strategies had exaggerated impact on perception when applied near the end of the bar which Harrison et al calls “end effect”.
Caterina Fake [8] has deemed that “progress bars must only advance, and never move back” due to negative emotions generated from backsliding progress.
Cost of the progress bar
Progress bars occupy space on a page and by adding value with captivating or meaningful design progress bars can be designed to maximize user engagement. Tufte coined the term ”data-ink ratio” [9] used to measure the efficiency of elements to reflect data on a page. A caveat a game designer should consider is that the most efficiently designed progress bar may not necessary resonate with the player, both the player and the purpose of the bar must be understood before the features discribed can be effectively applied.
[1] https://class.coursera.org/gamification-003/lecture/41
[2] http://www.enterprise-gamification.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Gamification_Design_Elements
[3] Salen & Zimmerman, Rules of Play http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rules-play[3] Myers, B.A. “The importance of percent-done progress indicators for computer-human interfaces”. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. CHI ’85. ACM, New York, NY. 11-17.
[5] http://larifari.org/blog/need-to-complete/
[6] Harrison, C., Yeo, Z., and Hudson, S. E. 2010. “Faster Progress Bars: Manipulating Perceived Duration with Visual Augmentations”. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’10. ACM, New York, NY. 1545-1548.
[7] Harrison, C., Amento, B., Kuznetsov S., Bell, R., Oct 2007. “Rethinking the Progress bar”. UIST,07, Newport, RI
Bitcoin in the real world
I used to move millions of EUR/USD/GBP around the world through multiple bank accounts on a weekly basis as part of my previous jobs in both investment and commercial banking. Depending on the type of accounts and clients (usually other banks) the actual movement of funds did not take the 3-4 working days as is commonly touted by high-street bankers.
The actual time it takes for most funds to transfer is the time taken for a SWIFT / fax/ TELEX message to be delivered (with its own security procedures), a banker’s authorisation, and the few key strokes to enter the change in the ledger. In an efficient office, with the infrastructure to quickly check the credit of clients, the compliance of the transfer (i.e. the sender/ beneficiary are not blacklisted etc.) this process could take a mere 10 minutes (the same time as a Bitcoin confirmation). BUT who has this “efficient office”? with the high volume world-wide transactions the time your transaction request is send it is probably just one in a constantly growing to-do-tray! What if there were robots/ computers to do this request, confirmation and ledger update for you? That is exactly what the infrastructure of Bitcoin enables. Getting robot/ computers to do mundane tasks have been around for a while now. Take a modern auto mobile production line, sure it can do things quicker, with less human-error, and less down-time. Yet the Bitcoin “quicker” is actually debatable, as Bitcoin does not go through the authorisation, compliance, and blacklist checks that regulated banks are supposed to (except HSBC). What Bitcoin does today is the equivalent of building a car without safety checks. Bitcoin skips a few steps so of course it is going to do things quicker; one reason why Bitcoin does this is because it is built to exist in a perfect, black-list-free, and error-free world as programmers wishfully but unrealistically intended. If a compliance bolt-on could be somehow added to the Bitcoin infrastructure then I am sure that at least the governments would be happier.
Bitcoin is something that humans need to interact with therefore from a realistic perspective, not an perfect-world perspective we argue the case that Bitcoin is a marvellous proof of concept, core-infrastructure, yet more development is need for real useful majority usage (a.k.a. crossing the chasm). I have seen first-hand the request of transfer of funds worth millions of USD only to be recalled later whether due to miscommunication, auto-fill “typo”, or human-error. What happened later was some form of saving grace or fund reversal and worse cases have been fines or interest charges, a few percent of the total. These mistakes were performed by paid, seasoned, professionals/ bankers. Now if we allow the market/ public control the dealings of fund transfer with the Bitcoin infrastructure it is empowering everyone to become a bank manager. Great! more power the better, right? Well, yes if you are also willing to shoulder the responsibility. There are reasons why we outsource things to others- greater expertise, greater responsibility or to reduce risks yet one of the liberating characteristics of Bitcoin is to give us the ability to control our own money “in-house”. Not a bad thing, for those who want it, for those that feel that the current banking system is too expensive or too limiting. Now also consider the other half of the transaction… the beneficiary/ payee/ vendor, is he someone you trust or an unknown online? why are you giving him you Bitcoin? are you hoping to get something in return? Banks, compliance officers, black-lists all play a part in ensuring trustworthy exchanges.
Bitcoin payments are irreversible which is great in a perfect world, if all vendors are trustworthy and also if humans never made a mistake, after all, we are now all empowered to shoulder the responsibility which includes the fines and loses. Not being able to separate man from his nature apps or policies can be made to address the trustworthy-ness of vendors and the inevitability of errors if not but a safety net for those who are getting used to their new roles as bank managers.
Trust on the other hand is not in short supply if you know where to look. Many people want to provide a legitimate good or service for a price. Therefore in conjunction with Bitcoin things like rating sites or market forums may also proliferate in order to build market trust. On the other hand, the already established rating sites could use this advantage to act as an intermediary for referring customers to highly rated/ trusted sites (as I already hypothesised here).
Bitcoin, at the end of the day is bare-bones. If you want compliance, legality, trust and something to protect against mistakes then a whole host of policies, bolt-ons, apps, companies and websites can be used to flesh Bitcoin out for the common user. From the stand point of in-store transactions such as for a coffee etc. there seems to be enough trust and legitimacy in this exchange to showcase the benefits of Bitcoin without these added apps. Yet I do not see the reason to do so, regular cash transaction would be at no disadvantage or extra expense and neither is a debit card transaction. There is no added benefit to using Bitcoin in this instance, instead, one should segment the types of goods and services in which using Bitcoins would have an advantage (e.g. online mirco-payments, large payments etc.) and in these instances it is very possible that the additional “safety nets” hypothesised above would be very useful to help Bitcoin users along in the real world.
Recent discussion with the CEO of Greenbank
In a recent discussion with the CEO of Greenbank, D. Wettreich I witnessed the opinions of a chief that recognised the external environment but discounted its dynamism. The unwavering stance that “Bitcoin is here to stay” is also evident in the way Mr Wettreich prescribes 2 factors that are “always a recipe for success” and the refusal to separate Bitcoin from its ideology.
Conversely, I highlighted the “second-mover-advantage” of an easier-to-use, less-tainted, and more regulated crypto-currency based on my own dissertation research of 108 companies and users (found in the pages of this website). Speaking about Porter’s 5 market forces model and the hold traditional banks have on “complimentary/ substitute products” I urged him to consider the brand-value (perception of security) and current market penetration (reach) that traditional banks have. Thus a strong position to contend with Bitcoin’s current market standing… that according to Mr. Wettreich “is here to stay”.
Judge for yourself, click for hi-res:
Any update of this conversation will be duly added in the comments section..
Ups and downs
Going from explaining what Bitcoins are to being meet with a “oh cool” to when I talk about my dissertation is at least a sign that my research filled the requirements of “relevant market value” that was specified on the dissertation mark scheme.
Researching this subject since 2012 the above candlestick chart shows how I would like to believe the market reacted to my dissertation submission. This of course is fictional as my exposure is no way the size that can move mountains like this. Bitcoin itself has remained the same all this time but the many stories in the media/ external environment have affected this upward trend in Bitcoin price.
Here are the my top three environmental situations for the recent rise in price.
Valuation of Bitcoin using to the Elaboration likelihood model (ELM), Peripheral route
How much are you prepared to pay for one Bitcoin? The current market value is at approximately USD 1000 (Mt. Gox).
This is more than five times the value compared to when I handed in my dissertation a mere 6 weeks ago! Why this movement in price? Why are more people willing to accept/trust Bitcoin as a method of payment? Using theories discussed in a recent lecture by Wharton’s Professor Kahn in Coursera.org’s marketing course we look at a pertinent overarching framework affecting the human notion of decision making: the Elaboration likelihood model (ELM).
The ELM, originally devised by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) and later adapted by Kim and Tadisina (2005) to the on-line environment, is a model of two paths: peripheral; and central; which affect how people form trust and in this instance affects the valuation of Bitcoin.
Path 1. Central-route processes requires the individual to think about they trust they bestow on Bitcoin. The trustor must evaluate and analyse the external messages and market signals, if favourable, trust is earned which denotes more value assigned to Bitcoin. For this route to be utilised, a person must have the ability and motivation to do so.
Path 2. Peripheral-route processes, on the other hand, is based on the perceived credibility of the source, message quality, a catchy slogan, or frequency seen (such are common tactics of marketers). It is based on external cues rather than thought so is subject to mass movements in market sentiment.
It is proposed that when users have little to no experience with dealing with a technology they rely on the peripheral route. As the customers’ experience matures it may push their formation of trust down the central path. If we take into account the low value of Bitcoin in the past; the niche interest in it; and the short time it has been around we can assume that there are not many experts in Bitcoin and that the current movements are caused by people going down the peripheral route of the ELM. Therefore I refer to a slide from the Wharton lecture:
I would suggest that recent activities, news, and the structure of Bitcoin itself fulfil many of these cues and is why people are persuaded into thinking it’s a good idea to trust and thus inflate the value of Bitcoin.
Looking at this list in reverse order:
Scarcity: The Bitcoin.org website testifies that “the number of new bitcoins created each year is automatically halved over time until bitcoin issuance halts completely with a total of 21 million bitcoins in existence” (http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#how-are-bitcoins-created). This limited amount creates scarcity thus influencing the buy decision.
Authority: Recent headlines read “…US lends legitimacy to virtual currencies…” (http://rt.com/usa/bitcoin-legitimate-senate-hearing-931/) and with more and more vendors accepting Bitcoins for goods and services we can acknowledge another peripheral cue.
Liking: Different people like different things, so be it the: decentralised; “anonymous”; idealistic; quick-transfer; free-transfer; or cryptological nature of Bitcoin there is something for everyone to like. Not forgetting the five times return on investment in a mere 6 weeks mentioned earlier!
Social Proof: This cue has the tag-line of “everybody’s doing it” on the Wharton lecture slide and that’s exactly what seems to be the current case with Bitcoin.
Consistency: It is somewhat tougher to sway individual’s judgement with Bitcoin’s consistency due to its volatile pricing history. Yet it is consistent in human behaviour to follow the crowd whether it is bullish or not. Currently the sentiment is jittery due to price fluctuations yet the trend for number of trades is increasing (http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=). Although Bitcoin does not offer the consistency to establish this quick peripheral cue trading trends indicate that Bitcoin is a currency that is ready to take-off… either that or investors are blindly following market sentiment, afraid to miss the boat (social proof cue).
Reciprocity: With traditional fiat currencies it would be difficult to argue the feeling of reciprocity when buying a currency. Yet with the Bitcoin infrastructure reliant on the network of computers to hash out transactions the investor can be part of this network. I’m not saying it is a large factor but with the lottery format of Bitcoin mining there is an added feeling of receiving from the Bitcoin system.
Just one of these cues are enough to resonate with individuals and Bitcoin happens to hit at least the first four. Perhaps there is even more to the genius of Bitcoin than first meets the eye.
Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, E. and Tadisina, S., 2005. Factors Impacting Customers’ Initial Trust in E-Business: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings on the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6, Waikoloa, Hawaii.
Insights on e-Transaction Start-ups: Bitwall.io- lacking customer centricity
The absence of transaction fees apparent on most e-currencies have brought about companies such as http://www.bitwall.io who propose a financial transaction service to “unlock the Internet’s monetization potential”.
Bitwall.io compare their service to the “good days” of vending: 25 cents for a singular item (see below).
But things have moved on since the “good days” and by looking at this business using a common marketing technique: segmentation by demographic we can ask the question: How does (micro)charging for on-line content match the general demographic of today’s internet users? also what customer segment would they attract?
Barbara Kahn professor at The Wharton School, Penn. commented in a marketing lecture on coursera.org (2013) that Generation Y (Millennials) demonstrate affinity for free on-line material as a general trait.
This suggests that in general paying for on-line material and hence Bitwall’s business model may face challenges in securing in customers born between 1980-2000 which is unfortunately the proportion of the population that spends the most time on the internet (Ipsos Media, October 2011).
On the other hand the perception of paying “next to nothing” may be just as good as being free. This means that Millennials may very well pay for a product/ app/ article as they may see 25 cents as worthless pocket-change (but this raises the questions, why is pocket-change perceived as next to nothing, is this due to the fact it is in the form of coins? how does the proliferation of e-transactions affect the amount of coin change generated? would amalgamating this change in an account affect the perceived value of each cent?). Further market research can be performed to gauge this range and I think it is important to research what are the characteristics of an on-line product that customers are willing to pay for to see if Bitwall.io are offering service that people will actually use.
With this insight of internet users Bitwall.io can adjust their customer value proposition to make their service more attractive. Bitwall.io may even start a service using blue ocean strategy, it is very possible that there are dollars to be earned by products with unique characteristics that no-one else has exploited yet.
So ruling out the Millennials, what portion of internet-users remember the “good days” of paying for newspapers?
http://www.psfk.com/2009/02/us-report-internet-usage-by-age.html
According to the psfk (2009) table above 70% of the internet using population in the US grew up in an era before internet news. This is definitely a large market but it is pertinent to question whether this 70% are willing to return to paying for little things like the on-line equivalent of newspapers. If we do compare this to the “good days” 25 cents for a newspaper of approximately 200,000 words is a great deal… I’m not sure if current publishing houses are saying if they are offering the same number of words for 25 cents. I speculate that internet articles are under 2,000 words and if it is charged at 25 cents it is not a fantastic deal.
Therefore, the lack of clarity on the end product along with lack of research makes it hard to know who the market are and how the market of tomorrow will take to micro-transactions of this manner. It is up to the companies producing the material to convince the customer to part with money regularly and to find what customers are willing to pay a premium for. Another way to approach this situation is to find the price-point which customers believe to be fair value.
These latter issues have little to do with companies like Bitwall.io who are concerned with the financial transition logistics. Bitwall.io may already have research pertaining to the future of this market for transactions of this size. It is a bold move to start up a company with such uncertain prospects but the low-costs do somewhat mitigate the high-risk. What Bitwall.io are doing is common practice in the start-up community today, I’m not referring to the actual business but the nature of taking a mediocre, poorly-researched idea and building a website which fingers-crossed with generate enough interest for a 6-figure buy-out.
One final thing, we have postulated that Millennials would not be as big users of this service as other older generations. So while it is edgy for designers to use Millennial-friendly web design and currently popular Avengers themes (see below) is it really appropriate for capturing the non- Millennial target market? It is thus my opinion Bitwall.io are actually targeting the young trend-watchers of the likes of Google in anticipation of a buyout and not really committed to providing a service to a market segment they have no research or customer relations with.
Current Bitwall.io theme: Avengers
The New Exchange 