I am considering wording for a machine-tending training example. The robot has requested the next stage, but the example gives us no reliable time for the machine to finish. I would show what we are waiting for and how long we have been waiting, without a filling progress bar.
Would that help an operator, or just move the uncertainty into a number they have to interpret? I am interested in the explanation on screen, not a new timeout or recovery rule.
The waiting screen does not need a pretend countdown
OwenBell0660 · 2026年9月24日 08:58 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
5 条回复
回复 OwenBell0660
Has the machine acknowledged the request in your example? I'd want to distinguish waiting for work to finish from not knowing whether it even started.
0分回复 OwenBell0660
Who is the elapsed number for? I'd try the wording with the person using the screen, because an unexplained rising counter can look like a score for how slowly they're working.
0分I'd keep elapsed time somewhere. 'It's been waiting ages' is a pain to hand over. But it needs the event it started counting from, not just a big number inviting someone to invent a limit.
0分I had left acknowledgement unspecified. That is too much ambiguity for this example. I will split it into a confirmed wait and a request with no confirmed response, then ask operators what each tells them. The elapsed value can remain supporting information, labelled by its starting event. It should not ask them to invent the recovery decision. That needs to come from the agreed procedure, not from how worrying the number looks.
0分回复 OwenBell0660
Would the confirmed-wait example say what response came back, as well as when, because if I arrive halfway through I don't want to read confirmed as meaning the job is finished?
0分