Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What do application actually base the update percentag bar on, because it doesn't seem to match up with remaining time, ever.
Executive Summary
Applications compute progress percentages using whatever measurable units the developer or framework exposes: simple counts of steps, proportions of bytes transferred, values mapped between a minimum and maximum, or heuristic/time-based estimates. Discrepancies between the percentage and the remaining time are a predictable consequence of design choices, non-uniform task durations, and changing system conditions rather than a single bug; understanding the underlying method—count, weight, size, or time—explains why bars “stall” or jump [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why your percentage and remaining time rarely match — the mechanics revealed
Progress bars commonly report a ratio of “completed units” over “total units,” where units can be arbitrary: steps in an installer, bytes copied, or incremental ticks defined by the developer. Libraries like Qt expose an explicit minimum/maximum and a setValue interface, so the percent shown is strictly that ratio, not an independent time prediction [1]. Installers and web components frequently map internal checkpoints to percent values; when those checkpoints vary wildly in duration, the percent progress can advance even while time remaining increases, producing the familiar mismatch [2] [5].
2. Multiple engineering strategies — why developers pick one over another
Engineers choose strategies for pragmatic reasons: counting discrete tasks is simple and deterministic; weighting steps or using file-size proportions can be more faithful for certain workloads; time-based estimators rely on historical or live throughput data to predict remaining time. Each approach trades off accuracy in percent versus accuracy in time: a byte-count method gives accurate percentage of data moved but can’t foresee slowdowns, while time-estimation can appear smoother but is vulnerable to variance in resource availability [2] [4]. The choice often reflects what information the application can measure reliably.
3. The unavoidable role of nondeterminism — system effects that defeat neat math
Even with a sensible metric, external factors such as disk caching, network variation, CPU scheduling, and cold vs warm caches make completion times nondeterministic. Studies and UX analyses emphasize that past performance does not guarantee future progress, and thus any time estimate is a probabilistic guess rather than an exact forecast [3] [4]. Designers acknowledge this by favoring perception techniques—animations or status text—to reduce user anxiety when the percent/time relationship breaks down [6].
4. How frameworks and libraries influence what you see — examples from UI toolkits
Toolkits and libraries expose primitives that shape behavior: Qt’s QProgressDialog uses a min/max and setValue model which makes percent literally a mapped value; web libraries like NProgress animate a progress bar often decoupled from exact task metrics to give continuous feedback; modern UI toolkits (and even ML-exposed progress in libraries like Gradio) may accept float updates or integrate iterable trackers to drive display. The UI you see is only as accurate as the data the back end supplies—libraries provide mechanisms but not magical accuracy [1] [5] [7].
5. UX research says accuracy isn’t the only goal — perception and patience matter
UX research categorizes progress indicator failure modes and prescribes perception-focused remedies: visual smoothing, informative textual updates, and staged checkpoints to manage expectations. Users tolerate imprecise percentages better when the interface communicates intent and stage, for example “Installing core files” versus a lone percent. Designers argue that giving context about what’s happening can be more valuable than obsessively accurate timing because waiting itself remains inherently unpleasant [6] [8].
6. Implementation choices and recommended trade-offs for developers
Practical engineering patterns include combining metrics: use byte-counts for data transfers, count discrete operations for installers, and add a thin layer of time-estimation that recalibrates with observed throughput. Back-end reporting can be implemented via callbacks, mutable progress objects, or iterable wrappers to centralize updates. Good implementations expose stage labels, smooth percent updates, and recalibrating ETA logic so users get both a meaningful percentage and a plausible remaining time, but none can eliminate variance from external conditions [9] [2].
7. Bottom line for users and how to interpret progress bars
When a progress bar appears inconsistent, the likely causes are explicit: the app measures different units than you expect, tasks are unevenly weighted, or system performance changed mid-operation. Treat the percent as a measure of completed work units, not an immutable prediction of minutes left; prefer interfaces that report stages or textual details when you need real certainty. Awareness of these trade-offs explains the common mismatch and highlights why designers often choose perceived smoothness over mathematically “perfect” ETAs [2] [3] [6].
8. Sources, agendas, and what’s omitted from common explanations
The available literature blends API documentation (which explains mechanics), engineering Q&A (which outlines implementation patterns), and UX research (which emphasizes perception). Documentation sources focus on deterministic control surfaces and therefore underplay environmental variance; UX pieces prioritize user feelings and so may underemphasize precise measurement techniques. A complete account requires combining API detail, empirical measurement, and UX framing—the sources above together show that percent vs ETA mismatch is structural, not merely a UI bug [1] [6] [4].