Should error messages apologize? (2013)

Post by mdek » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 2:28 PM UTC

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…

Post by NiteOwl066 » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

8organicbits wrote: post #43

I suspect there are cultural preferences here, there's no reason to believe there's one correct answer for all of humanity. I'm from the US but I've traveled to places where it's considered rude to say "no" directly and apologies aren't common. Like when trying to order an unavailable item from a menu: - I'd like the beef burger - The chicken burger is very good - That's OK, can I have the beef burger? - Our hot dogs…

Post by light_hue_1 » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 2:38 PM UTC

acatnamedjoe wrote: post #35

shellac wrote: post #19

> it would be more appropriate to "apologize" for something that would be considered solely the "fault" of the application Is this in part a US vs English difference? I used to work with somebody from Texas who was confused and irritated by the english use of 'sorry' for things they weren't responsible for. In english I suppose we use it out of politeness to express some sympathy, rather than necessarily as an apolog…

As an English person my first instinct is to add "sorry" to virtually any user-facing text!

Post by kragen » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #27

082349872349872 wrote: post #6

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…

Post by PinkSheep » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #29

noirscape wrote: post #15

Honestly, no. An error message shouldn't apologize. A good error message has the following conditions: * Concise. ("You need to enter a number in this field, not text" = Good, "we're very sorry but we can't understand it if you write your age in text" = Bad). * Clearly telling the user what went wrong without relying on technical jargon. The line number where something went wrong doesn't need to be in an error messag…

> "You need to enter a number in this field, not text" = Good No. Never tell me what I "need to" do. There are any number of ways to get this message across without telling me what I need to do. One example off the top of my head, probably not the best, but certainly an improvement because it doesn't blame me: > This field only accepts numbers For bonus points, put that message next to the field modelessly at the mom…