Measuring UI Responsiveness via Actionable Control Tracking

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing monitoring tools fail to accurately measure user interface responsiveness, as they often rely on network transactions or complete UI rendering time, which do not accurately reflect user-perceived performance, and do not distinguish between frequently and rarely interacted UI controls.

Innovation Solution

Measuring UI responsiveness by identifying 'actionable' controls through crowd-sourced user interaction data, determining the time when these controls become responsive after user interaction, and using this metric as a key performance indicator (KPI) for user interface performance.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If monitoring tools measure complete UI rendering time, then they can track overall application performance, but they fail to accurately reflect user-perceived performance since users can interact with partially loaded UI

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveUI responsiveness measurement accuracyVSAvoidtime to complete UI rendering
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the UI rendering process by identifying and tracking individual actionable controls separately from the complete UI rendering. Instead of measuring the entire UI as a single unit, the system divides the UI into discrete actionable elements (buttons, links, form fields) and measures when each becomes interactive, providing granular responsiveness data that reflects actual user experience.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by determining UI responsiveness before complete rendering is finished. The system identifies when enough actionable controls are available for meaningful user interaction, even if the entire UI is not yet fully rendered. This allows responsiveness measurement to occur at a partial completion state that better reflects user-perceived performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Measurement precision

If monitoring tools track all UI controls, then they can comprehensively measure UI performance, but they cannot distinguish between frequently and rarely interacted controls

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveUI control interaction measurement accuracyVSAvoiddata processing complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by differentiating between various types of UI controls based on their interaction frequency and user importance. Actionable controls are identified and weighted differently from non-actionable elements, and frequently interacted controls are prioritized in measurements. This allows the system to focus measurement resources on the most user-relevant UI elements rather than treating all controls equally.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent extracts and isolates actionable controls from the broader UI control set. By identifying and separating the subset of controls that users actually interact with (buttons, links, form fields) from other UI elements, the system can focus measurement efforts on these extracted elements, reducing complexity while improving measurement relevance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Measurement precision

If monitoring tools rely on network transactions, then they can track application performance, but they do not accurately measure user interface responsiveness since network activity does not directly correlate with UI interactivity

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveUI responsiveness measurement accuracyVSAvoidUI interaction state information
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an intermediary mechanism that bridges network transaction data and UI state information. Rather than directly correlating network activity with UI responsiveness, the system uses this intermediary layer to translate and reconcile the two data sources, allowing accurate determination of when actionable controls become interactive even when network transactions occur asynchronously or independently of UI state changes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS10552290B2Measuring user interface responsiveness
Publication Date: 2020.02.04 MICRO FOCUS LLC
  • US10552290B2 patent drawing
  • US10552290B2 patent drawing
  • US10552290B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Example embodiments relate to measuring user interface (UI) responsiveness related to a UI of an application running on a computing device. An example method may include accessing a list of actionable controls, where the list indicates at least one UI control of the UI as being actionable. The method may include detecting a user interaction when a user interacts with a UI control of the UI. The method may include determining a list of change controls. The change controls are UI controls that change, refresh or load in response to the user interaction, which will ultimately be displayed on a next screen of the UI after the user interaction, and which are also on the list of actionable controls. The method may include determining a UI responsive time based on the list of change controls.