This is a great question. I interpret it in terms of user experience.
Fast Company interviewed Kevin Systrom several years ago when Instagram added pull-to-refresh. He was not at that.
Systrom feels a gesture that allows mobile users to update their photo feeds by simply dragging their thumb, is an unnecessary addition to its application, a relic of another era of the smartphone. “I don’t believe there should be update buttons,” he says.
You are correct that applications do not need to provide manual update features. I would say that actions related to updating and other users fall under the category of interfaces that return the agency to users, rather than relying on automatic processes to complete the task - in this case, updating the content.
There are several questions that the user can ask if the update links were removed from the examples you gave.
- How do I get new content?
- How often is this content updated?
Does the user know that the content is automatically updated? Do they hope that it is quickly and consistently updated?
The Nielsen Norman Group wrote a message at the end of last year about the visibility of the state of the system, in particular, that progress indicators contribute to a positive user experience, reducing uncertainty. I would continue this study to proceed with the update and its associated interfaces. Preserving the user's ability to manually perform an action that retrieves new content covers two of the ninety-fifty usability sketches — visibility of the state of the system and user control and freedom.
In this light, the user who connects to the update has a special vision: I need the latest data, and I want it now. Necessary or not, allowing them to update manually, can help improve the user experience.
source share