J.M. "Peng" Hardin wrote:
> IMO it's always good to give users a way to know that the task is in
> process. IMO a "wait cursor" is the very least that a users should see
> when a task like this is in progress.
>
>
Wouldn't the time be better spent fixing the problem?
J.M. "Peng" Hardin wrote:
> IMO it's always good to give users a way to know that the task is in
> process. IMO a "wait cursor" is the very least that a users should see
> when a task like this is in progress.
>
>
Wouldn't the time be better spent fixing the problem?