I don't think this is the right approach. I realize that the principle is fundamentally the same with SOPA protests (depriving users of content to highlight the danger of this passing), but there's a more salient argument that you could make here if you really wanted.
Why not implement a loading bar that actually progressed slowly and then put a brief explanation underneath the loading bar describing the FCC "slow lane" and how it would negatively impact users?
To add insult to injury, give the user 3 options:
- pay the site owner to access the "fast lane" to your content
- send an email (to FCC chair? maybe a representative?) to voice their anger
- get used to waiting; that'll be the new norm if nobody prevents this, right?
The first option would be incredibly controversial, but would underscore how objectionable the "Slow Lane" idea even is. If anyone is stubborn enough to pay, you could funnel that money into the EFF or some other relevant organization.
The point is that just throwing people a loading screen (especially without a good explanation) will leave the user confused. Once the content loads they'll probably forget about that loading screen anyway (at least on a conscious level), so don't wait until afterward to explain what just happened.
As an aside, there was a comment that users will wait for a website that's sufficiently highly trafficked, but I don't think that's true. I remember some Google presentation[0] where an engineer explained that virtually any extra loading time was enough to discourage users from returning. Maybe that's just with search or other highly interactive sites (rather than reading a blog, for example), but I wouldn't want to test that hypothesis with any site I cared about and managed.
We're adding more explanation to the loading screen. Also, for folks who don't want to interrupt users, here's an anigif to post. http://imgur.com/PQRaxNa (putting this up on the site now)
Why not implement a loading bar that actually progressed slowly and then put a brief explanation underneath the loading bar describing the FCC "slow lane" and how it would negatively impact users?
To add insult to injury, give the user 3 options:
- pay the site owner to access the "fast lane" to your content
- send an email (to FCC chair? maybe a representative?) to voice their anger
- get used to waiting; that'll be the new norm if nobody prevents this, right?
The first option would be incredibly controversial, but would underscore how objectionable the "Slow Lane" idea even is. If anyone is stubborn enough to pay, you could funnel that money into the EFF or some other relevant organization.
The point is that just throwing people a loading screen (especially without a good explanation) will leave the user confused. Once the content loads they'll probably forget about that loading screen anyway (at least on a conscious level), so don't wait until afterward to explain what just happened.
As an aside, there was a comment that users will wait for a website that's sufficiently highly trafficked, but I don't think that's true. I remember some Google presentation[0] where an engineer explained that virtually any extra loading time was enough to discourage users from returning. Maybe that's just with search or other highly interactive sites (rather than reading a blog, for example), but I wouldn't want to test that hypothesis with any site I cared about and managed.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4swGfTOSM - The "impact of slow sites" comes up early on.