Live data from Hacker News

Should error messages apologize? (2013)

ux.stackexchange.com

261–262 of 262 posts

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > I understand that consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing > Linux is maintained by power users that want to give the same power to every users Look at the assumptions behind "UX is dumbing down" and "idiots". Good UX is about making the same power more consistent to waste less of your finite brain power to use it, leaving more free for other things. Good UX is abo…

> Good UX is about Can we agree that whenever you wrote "Good UX _is_ about ..." you actually meant "Good UX _should be_ about ..."? In practice many things that happened in the name of user friendliness did remove a lot of power from the users. Good counter examples not withstanding.

You want us to agree that "Good UX _could_ be about making things worse"?

I can agree that many things actually do get worse, but I'm arguing against the implicit connection "this thing has some power and it is complex. The only way to make it nicer to use - easier, simpler, more approachable, less mental effort - involves removing or restricting the power, always and necessarily".

Take a piece of metal, flatten and grind the end, and use it as a flathead screwdriver and a small knife. Now you say "that's my powerful and useful multitool, don't you dare dumb it down for idiots or you'll remove my power!". It makes a poor knife because the blade has to be small enough to fit in a screwhead and keeps being blunted by using it as a screwdriver, and it makes a poor screwdriver because the blade is thin holding a knife edge which makes it weak and brittle, and it's a poor tool because you're trying to grip a small slippery piece of metal. Put a rubberised large grippy handle on it, it's improved - easier to hold, less likely for your grip to slip and end up hurting yourself or damaging what you are working on, and looks more visibly like a tool to someone coming in afresh if they're looking for a screwdriver - and the same power. Split it into a knife and a screwdriver, each can be better at their task - stronger screwdriver blade, bigger sharper knife blade, custom shaped handles for turning vs slicing - that's easier to use, easier to learn, and overall more powerful.

Yes someone could round off the end for 'safety for normal people' and that would remove the power, but we can't agree that's ever "good design". Particularly I won't agree "consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing" --> "any change which improves ease of use or convenience or comfort necessarily rounds off the power" (not necessarily true) or "only idiots want or need tools to be easier to use" (not true).

Re: Should error messages apologize? (2013)

#262
post #27

Given the reference to "your administrator" the user-facing sorry seems fine. IMNSHO, dev-facing error messages bifurcate: - errors for unsuitable input should not be apologetic: "inconsistent def'ns at foo:42 and bar:69" - errors for implementation limitations may be apologetic: "sorry, at foo:42 node bar has 69 attributes; this implementation supports at most 63"

it depends in large part on who you impute the speaker of the error message to be, and who the listener if i say to you 'i'm sorry my email was so long' that question doesn't arise; you know who the speaker is and who the intended listener is. similarly, if your browser says to you 'i'm sorry my email was so long', as it is doing as you read this, hopefully the surrounding context contains enough information to ident…

comments welcome
Post reply on HN