Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should error messages apologize? (2013)

ux.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#151

Post by wseqyrku »

hbn wrote: post #109
rogual wrote: post #66

I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…

I blame Google for popularizing that. Honestly it was fine enough for a YouTube error, "we couldn't find that video." But then everyone started copying it, including Microsoft who, in Windows 8, updated the blue screen of death to have a "whoopsie poopsie! Your computer has a widdle boo boo!" type message, accented with a :( sad face emoticon. Which I can guarantee was presented to countless people who lost real work…

I've seen this one from Google which is kind of peculiar.

Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server. _That’s all we know._

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#152

Post by iguanayou »

layer8 wrote: post #112
rogual wrote: post #66

I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…

“We” is a Microsoft-ism they started with Windows 10. Yes, it is horrible, because it puts the user into a minority position against an anonymous “we” that apparently controls the system. It has a belittling and patronizing tone that emphasizes the user being powerless and non-autonomous, who instead has to be taken care of by, and is at the mercy of, the anonymous “we”.

At least they stopped putting "My" in front of everything.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#153

Post by barrkel »

estebank wrote: post #120
barrkel wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actionable error messages are a lot more work and are not always feasible. A library discovering a mismatch between a configuration setting and a value it received by API isn't in a position to make a decision on which is wrong: is it misconfigured, or is the value it received via API under the control of the user? The caller of the API isn't necessarily in a better place to make a decision. The higher up the stack y…

It's true that providing good actionable errors with useful context is hard and sometimes requires global knowledge. It still should be attempted . I see that if a project doesn't aim for that objective, then errors are the first thing to degrade and stay bad indefinitely. If even a modicum of effort is put to improve them, the project attracts users and contributors that appreciate them and try to improve them or at…

The best is the enemy of the good.

In practice, instead of describing the error, a policy for actionable error messages all too frequently results in something along the lines of

    Action failed. Go to https://example.com/foo?code=E123 for more details.
It's "actionable" - there's a place you can go for more information - but there's little or no context, and the web page is frequently vague. You need to dive into logs to find out what goes wrong these days.

I prefer an error message that isn't necessarily actionable, but tells me what the code was trying to do that failed, even if it's very low level.

    Error: Disk quota exceeded while trying to write to "D:\scratch\ABCEF.tmp"
This gives me clues. I can recognize a directory I configured, or a filename I'm working with. I know which disk is the problem. Etc.

And of course these two approaches can't be easily melded without transmitting config, detailed failure information including disk free space etc. back to home base.

PS: I use Windows paths here because I noticed a significant degradation in error messages from Microsoft software in the early 2000s, which made it harder to fix problems locally without searching the internet for error codes and randomly trying out fixes from various forums.

I also believe that an industry-wide pull-back from exceptions as an error transmission mechanism resulted in worse error messages. Without runtime polymorphism to encapsulate context from the point of failure, the higher level parts of the app no longer have enough information to even give a descriptive error message, the way a top-level UI exception handler used to.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#154

Post by jodrellblank »

layer8 wrote: post #116
lqet wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets even worse when error messages try to be cute or clever. It's childish and slightly patronizing. "Whoops, sorry! This wasn't what you were looking for!" "Oops! You broke the internet. We are trying to fix it." "Are you lost? Let us help you home (link to home page)" https://www.callbruno.com/en/404 Just treat me like an adult and tell me what's wrong. Preferably with a googleable error code.

This went viral a couple years ago: https://twitter.com/cherrikissu/status/972524442600558594 Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812857

From the discussion "This seems to be part of a broader, ongoing software infantilization process. Colors can't be sober either, everything has to be colorful, cheerful."

What kind of shallow charicature of a tough guy do you have to be that seeing colours makes you feel like a baby and that cheerful is a bad thing, something to be stopped?

> "Besides the obvious inappropriateness"

Obvious?? All tools should be monochrome, and everyone should feel like they work in a funeral parlour? If it was supposed to be cheerful it wouldn't be called work? It must have been the colourful offices[1] which stopped Google from making any money, I guess?

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=google+offices&iax=images&i...

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#155

Post by bitwize »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #97
melagonster wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at least they don't hide their purpose. current software is service.

They literally said that Windows is a service on one of the Windows 10 splash screens during installation/update.

Yeah. One of their mandatory update dialogs. "Windows is a service, and updates help us provide that service smoothly, so if you could reboot for updates, say, now, that would be terrific." Not an exact quote but it captures the spirit.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#156

Post by bitwize »

iguanayou wrote: post #152
layer8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We” is a Microsoft-ism they started with Windows 10. Yes, it is horrible, because it puts the user into a minority position against an anonymous “we” that apparently controls the system. It has a belittling and patronizing tone that emphasizes the user being powerless and non-autonomous, who instead has to be taken care of by, and is at the mercy of, the anonymous “we”.

At least they stopped putting "My" in front of everything.

But that was just brutal honesty: it's not your computer anymore.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#157

Post by karmakaze »

rogual wrote: post #66

I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…

I also don't like renaming well-known things based on a theme or analogies that are carried way too far and gets in the way of simple communication.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#158

Post by eschneider »

rogual wrote: post #66

I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…

"The computer." Don't want to imply that it's "their" computer.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#159

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

rogual wrote: post #66

I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…

The automated railway announcements in the UK say "I'm sorry".

Rubs me up the wrong way, because there would be no way to identify who the individual apologising is.

However, I think error messages should apologise in the rare situation that there is no constructive, helpful, language-neutral way to convey an actionable response in an error.

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#160

Post by whynotmaybe »

ohyes wrote: post #148

I like my error messages to eschew anthropomorphisms. Tell me what went wrong so I can figure out how to fix it. I don’t care whose fault it is or how very sorry they are for the mistake. Even saying “the website you are trying to contact is down” can be misleading, maybe it’s not down, maybe I’ve lost my internet connection or the ip changed and dns hasn’t updated, or I have some rule locally that is redirecting me…

You are giving an explanation on my feeling on why the "year of the Linux desktop" won't come.

Linux is maintained by power users that want to give the same power to every users but nowadays, the vast majority of users don't need and don't want those powers.

I guess you never had to deal with the flow of complaints whenever an update was installed and the icon for the app changed. Many users couldn't start "the application".

It was even customary in some organizations to create their own shortcut with their own icon to start iexplore or excel.

I know that whenever a site "can't be found", it's been blocked by my pihole. But to anyone else connected on my network, it's "the internet is down".

Post reply on HN