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 soapbox. It's icky.
And without "we", there can of course be no "we apologize".
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'm sure they found that real reassuring.
I mentioned in another comment that the "apology" and humanization of the error messages doesn't bother me, but I have to admit that the frowny face and the infantilizing messages DOES make me irrationally irritated.
Another trend on similar lines is putting cutesy / jokey text in mobile app changelogs. The people who don’t care what changed likely have automatic updates switched on anyway and it would be nice for the people who do care to actually know what changed.
The worst offender I have found is Lemonade Insurance which doesn’t even tack on the obligatory “bug fixes and performance improvements” at the end.
Wow, what a website as well. It literally takes 20 seconds to load the homepage for me. And then the background randomly changing color as you scroll? I'm not terribly picky with design, and I get that its more of a design demo, but it is seems so overdone as a whole
There's a difference of what is broke that matters. I'm playing out cases in my head ...
If I visit a website, "They" broke.
If my phone crashes, "It" broke.
My phone shouldn't say "we" - I don't grok the idea of people in there.
The website should say "we" - It's an organization presenting data, and I do believe there are people behind it.
My car shouldn't say "we" - My car is an "it", a thing that lives in my garage and I drive around.
NVIDIA drivers shouldn't say "we" - I'm running the program. I'm the agent. If anything, when I check for drivers, it should say "they have an update ready". The program is executing on my machine. It's mine. "They" are the people who publish updates. "We" (program and I) go fetch and install them.
But programs don't have agency - so if "it" can't fetch "their" update, then "Update could not be fetched" conveys all the info I need to know.
Then there's the "simpy" problem of always apologizing. For this reason I like TFA's final recommendation:
> Use the word “sorry” only in error messages that result in serious problems for the user (for example, data loss or inability to use the computer). Don’t apologize if the issue occurred during the normal functioning of the program (for example, if the user needs to wait for a network connection to be found).
I agree. Give me a short, concise, unapologetic error message.
Some years ago, the Google Voice app for Android would put a message in the notification bar whenever there was even the most brief connectivity issue (which in the early days of 3G on android was frequent) starting off with "We have a problem ... <connnecting to your google voice account or something>". Considering that I used that GV number for two highly regulated activities with potential high liability, my heart would skip a beat every time a pull out my phone and see "We have a problem".
I'm also an old fogey by some metrics, but I don't relate to that sentiment very much.
I think that using "we" and "apologizing" is fair for most user-facing applications. It's kind of like the old adage: the customer is always right. Obviously the user wanted to accomplish something, and tried something to achieve it, but your software couldn't figure out what they wanted or didn't have enough information to do it, etc. So, it's kind of like a store clerk saying "I'm sorry; we're all out of that color dress."
Now, I would say this kind of "polite", human-centric, UI is not appropriate for e.g., sysadmin stuff like coreutils. I think it's perfectly fine if `cat /some/file` errors by saying "That file doesn't exist. Get bent."
Also, just to inject some unrelated cynicism... To your example about updating, I think with how pushy companies like Microsoft are with updates, it might actually be more accurate for them to say "We are updating your computer and enacting our will with your equipment."
It can be worrying too, those Windows updates where you have a blank screen with something like "We're getting your files". Could be interpreted the wrong way...
My preference is to get the raw details I need. I'd rather see a stack trace than, "We are sorry but there seems to have been some type of error."
However, I can also see a case for the other point of view. In working on large enterprise systems that are being used by users who are not technical, the "we" helps reinforce the idea that things aren't outside of the users locus of control. There is an whole group of people employed by the organization behind the scenes that are part of the way the overall system works. So the "we" emphasizes that the system, the error, the people who write the system, the person trying to use the system, are all part of whatever they are trying to do together.
I did dial-up tech support for MSN 20 years ago and was trained to say "We" instead of "I." It was probably meant to make users feel like there are many people ready to help them, or avoid personal responsibility.
I still use "we" whenever I'm emailing clients, except now it's to sound like there is more than just me in this dept.
Or, go the other way and slightly insult the user's intelligence: "You cannot perform that action on that selection because it would violate causality"
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.
Do they? I've just spent most of today on the railways, as it happens, but I didn't hear that despite some disruption; indeed I've never heard it. During my journey today, the Eurostar staff apologised over the tannoy personally, and the Great Western train manager personally announced a delay with great enthusiasm on a recent trip ("we are running three minutes behind schedule; we apologise for any inconvenience or disruption").
I'm curious to know which line/operator you've heard this on.
I've got my own pet-peeve automated announcement though: "This is a National Rail security announcement..." Oh no! Is there a riot on the platform? Was someone assaulted? No, listen further: "...If you see something that doesn't look right, text the British Transport Police on 61016".
Like, that's not even a real announcement, and doesn't every passenger know the number by now??
P.S. I feel that it's right to note for those unfamiliar with the English railways that GWR are probably the most effective train operator in England, and that the delay I had wasn't their fault. Eurostar, having almost exclusive use of HS1 and the Channel Tunnel, don't have that excuse available, but they were still impeccablely professional.
> he 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 soapbox. It's icky.
But they are reaching into your computer and enacting their will. The passive voice strikes me as even ickier when it is used to amorphously shift blame into the ether. I would much rather read "sorry, we fucked and formatted your harddisk because we suck at programming" than "an error occurred and all your data is gone". Take some damn responsibility.
I think it can be acceptable to use "I" in UI messages. After all, the app is the one doing things, and it's what I'm interacting with, so it would be fine to have a message like "I'm going to do X" or "I tried to do X but Y", or "I can't find the Z on this computer"
That isn't a valid haiku, and it's much less clear, in my opinion. If you give me a nice big "404 Not Found" up front and then include a poem, HTTP cat, or easter egg, that would give the page personality while still being immediately useful.
“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”.
I know this wasn't intentional, but when I click this link, I get a "No such item" error message, which I find to be ironic given the nature of this discussion. The link just has a trailing semicolon that needs to be removed, though.
Agreed. When Microsoft started doing this and everyone else followed suit I found it super annoying. Meanwhile, some UX moron patted themselves in the back.
The passive voice is fine. The error of writing in the passive voice when you shouldn't be is common enough in composition that it has been short-handed to "never use the passive voice" though.
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 are also very good
I'd guess that text like "Access denied" or "You don't have access" would feel too direct and may come off as rude in that context. A "sorry" would feel out of place. Perhaps "This page is access restricted" would be best, as it alludes to the user not having access without directly saying it.
Conversely, I much prefer quick and direct communication with or without the apology: "[Sorry,] we don't have the beef burger."
I'd love to hear opinions of non-US and non-Westerners on this. We're in a thought bubble otherwise.
I really don't want my software to be polite, I think that many Linux CLI tools do a good job with this:
cat: /etc/whatever: No such file or directory
No nonesense, no politeness, just the pure, searchable error. I've noticed that some MS CLI tools do the exact opposite, and print out an entire paragraph to say something very simple, gpupdate comes to mind, spitting this out if the domain is unreachable:
The processing of Group Policy failed because of lack of network connectivity to a domain controller. This may be a transient condition. A success message would be generated once the machine gets connected to the domain controller and Group Policy has successfully processed. If you do not see a success Message for several hours, then contact your administrator.
A much more sensible error in my opinion would be:
For something as simple as cat that may work fine. But that message actually fails to say why it failed. It just gives you a fact that is presumably related to the exit code. In fact it doesn't even say it failed at all!, if your shell doesn't show the exit code you may read this as a warning or other non-critical information..
While it is hard to argue with succinctness of an error from such a simple program it may be better to say something like:
Fatal error: Couldn't open /etc/whatever. No such file or directory.
There's also, "[Sorry,] we're out of the beef burger. The chicken is very good though." This maximizes useful information.
While I understand it "just works" in those cultures, simply redirecting while avoiding a negative response is one of those things that only works in a cultural context where it's expected... to me, it would be pretty confusing. I don't think that's because my culture promotes directness, but more that I lack the cultural background of expecting avoidance.
Autistic people in those cultures must have a pretty tough time.
> simply redirecting while avoiding a negative response is one of those things that only works in a cultural context where it's expected... to me, it would be pretty confusing
It was confusing to me as well. But I am left wondering, is the directness of software frustrating people who culturally prefer indirect communication. I haven't seen anyone weigh in on that yet.
If such evasive speech is the cultural norm, then it should be handled in localization. After all it is about adapting a software to local language and preferences. It is not merely running strings through Google Translate.
Taking that evasive speech approach, which is considered polite in one culture, to another culture may very well be rude. I usually consider it rude if some direct question is evaded instead of answered.
People who speak English and frequent this website will inevitably follow US culture or news coverage and have been tainted by it in some way. At the same time cultures are growing closer together, in part this is visible in poor internationalization of programs. It's becoming hard to draw the line.
In addition to the other couple of replies that mention Japan, I would suggest, just start paying attention to this in the sense of deliberative practice, and you may find that your brain has been doing more editing on your social interactions than you may have realized. Sometimes the hardest things to see are the things we deal with all the time because our brains just read them as baseline. There's only a handful of cultures that are so blunt as to just say "no", bare and unadorned. Almost all cultures wrap a "no" in something to soften it. And I take a broad definition of "culture" here, including not just national, but company, family, other organizations, all sorts of cultures. You'll find it's quite a spectrum, and there's all sorts of inputs too, like positions in various hierarchies (perceived, formal, cultural, etc.).
You may also start doing this and realize that you personally have a mismatch with one of the cultures you participate in, which may even help resolve some small social problems you didn't even realize you were causing by bucking the particular culture's practices.
One time in Japan I met with the local bike repairman. He was an ojiisan and I had a friend to translate.
Instead of him saying something like "fixing your bent spokes on a $120 bike isn't worth my time or your money" he just said "there is no problem" over and over again
If this is a fun question for you, the book The Culture Map covers a lot of differences in how different cultures communicate, set expectations, express disagreement and displeasure, etc.
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 identify the purported speaker and intended listener. (i'm sorry my email was so long!) it is 'quoted speech', as when lisa says, 'and tanya was all, "i'm sooo drunk right now! oh my god, i'm like sooo sorrryyy!" and we laughed'; lisa is not apologizing, tanya is.
but what agent does a running computer program represent? or, on whose behalf are its error mesages speaking?
— ⁂ —
in the case of, for example, a built-in macos program, this is clear: it represents apple, the corporation, a fictitious collective identity like the dread pirate roberts, anonymous, or bourbaki. in exchange for your money, apple is providing you a service by allowing you to run that software on the computer you nominally bought. the computer program, written or at least patched together by apple programmers, speaks with apple's voice
therefore, if apple cannot fulfill your request, it would be polite for apple to express regret, in the program's error message, for letting your hopes down. perhaps it could include a link to the web site where you can purchase the permission to use 'your' computer to think the thoughts you are not currently licensed to think in it. this applies generally to proprietary software that you are not allowed to fix, as vanderZwan suggests. (even if you can figure out how to fix it, apple is responsible for making that unnecessarily difficult by, for example, not supplying you source code and checking executable signatures.)
— ⁂ —
traditionally, though, on conventional timesharing operating systems like unix, the programs are considered to be an extension of the user's mind, as a bicycle is an extension of their body, and thus they represent the user's agency; they carry out the user's own will, not the will of their programmers. a program that carries out the will of its programmer, where it conflicts with the will of its user, is considered a 'trojan horse' or 'malicious', with narrow exceptions; and strong social sanctions are attached to distributing such programs. the protection mechanisms in the operating system simply assume they don't exist
so, in that social context, if a program is speaking to you, it is speaking to you on your own behalf, like a note you have left yourself in your day planner. perhaps tex does not have enough string space to interpret a given document, because you compiled it to have less string space than that, or perhaps you chose to use a copy of tex a colleague of yours compiled, to save the time and disk quota of compiling it yourself. that is no different from your example of contradictory declarations in the input; all that is needed is pointers to the mutually inconsistent limits (ran out of string space at bar.tex line 5329, string space size is defined in foo.web line 30213, compiled on 01994-10-31 from the source tree in /u3/schaker/new-tex)
should cannondale apologize to you when you fall off your bicycle, or arrive late to a meeting, or ride into a slum and get mugged? if you open the kitchen cabinet to get the table salt, and find that you have left it in the dining room, will you apologize to yourself? when you reserve time in your day planner for a meeting you expect to be unpleasant, does the calendar entry begin with "i'm sorry"? should don knuth apologize for not making the string size allocation larger? surely not. even schaker probably should not; if you want a larger string size allocation, you can recompile tex yourself almost as easily as schaker can
but it depends on the social context. perhaps if schaker is responsible for maintaining the tex installation all the math professors use, the error message should include his email address so they can request a dilation of their tex
— ⁂ —
in general, in free software† the app's programmers are not responsible for its behavior, unless they have somehow contrived to conceal it. you, the user, are fully empowered to modify the app to manifest your own agency, and responsible for doing so. so the traditional timesharing situation holds
a precondition for a sincere apology is accepting responsibility for the situation being apologized for—which implies that the intended recipient of the apology does not have that responsibility. in free software, a maximally uncharitable interpretation of an error message (other than for an internal bug) saying 'i apologize for' (or, worse, 'we apologize for') is a red flag that the developer is a renegade who rejects this social contract; they are attempting to arrogate the right to determine what you may and may not do with your computer, by virtue of having written some of the software you are trying to use to do it. like ayn rand, they consider themself an atlas on whose shoulders the mere user is generously permitted to ride, as long as they do not shrug. they consider 'trojan horses' to be normal software. this is not a collegial or collaborative relationship
but that is a maximally uncharitable interpretation. perhaps the programmer is apologizing because they felt that they left a job half done, or they would have liked to find a smoother way to handle a different situation, and just couldn't figure one out. or perhaps the "sorry" is not really an apology, accepting responsibility, but merely an expression of sympathy for the users who find themselves in an unfortunate situation, without respect to whose responsibility it is
but, with respect to error message design, it is an immense blunder to generalize from the social context of proprietary software like xcode to the social context of free software like gcc
of course, in some situations, free software on a shared computer is instead an instrument of some office administrator or similar, who is the agent responsible for the unfortunate situation that might merit an apology. in that case the desk phone number and email address of that administrator ought to be included in the error message, in the interest of solving the problem as expeditiously as possible if it is urgent to the user
— ⁂ —
while it can be amusing for computer programs to present us a theater in which various personages portray different personalities—some servile, some compassionate, some aggressive—artistically that can be done well or poorly, and it is important for the user to understand that these personages are fictional, and that a conventional computer program is merely an instrument, not an agent
different users' tastes in such theater may vary; judging from popular novels, movies, tv shows, video games, and rap music, most prefer fiction containing passionate, aggressive personages who struggle to the death. portraying such personages in error messages would surely be entertaining (japanese video games often do this, launching insults at the player character when the player suffers a misfortune they could have avoided) but it might occasionally cause difficulties when a user appears who does not understand that the program is not itself an agent, and anyway if done without artistic skill it will not be entertaining at all
on the other hand, the stackexchange thread seems to recommend always portraying agents in error messages and always making them servile. this compounds that risk rather than ameliorating it: it is commonly done without enough artistic skill to render it entertaining; it adds the extra challenge of making a servile personage sympathetic rather than merely irritating; and the motivation given in the stackexchange thread insults the user by the unspoken implication that they are unable to distinguish the fictional personage portrayed in a computer program from a real sentient agent—an implication that may not be apparent from a single error message, but which will surely become evident over time unless the user is very small or socially handicapped
______
† perhaps we should rename free software 'nontoxic software', given that the movement to rename it 'open source' has not been as successful as was hoped, and 'free software' was always unavoidably a very confusing term
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 incorrectly. Guiding someone into an assumption is harmful and a waste of time, if not dangerous.
I understand that consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing (we should strive for the most idiot proof interface possible), but that design principle is useless when things go wrong and you need to fix it.
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".
> > 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 about keeping the same power but making it easier for intelligent people without experience to come in and pick it up and predict how it will work. Good UX is about making the abstractions cleaner and the tools more extensible to allow the same power to be used in more situations. Good UX is about settling the existing tools to allow even more power to be added, or built on top of them, without them collapsing. Good UX is about making the same power lower activation effort to use so you can focus less on setting up the tooling and more on the problem space. Good UX is about making it easier for idiots to use it, but not at the expense of experts. Good UX is about making a problem go away completely so nobody needs any tooling or to waste any time on it.
> "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"."
That's a terrible UX. There's nobody helped by you feeling clever for understanding an inaccurate error message and looking down on people who don't understand it. Putting a clear and accurate error isn't "dumbing down". That's the fear that you would feel dumb if you didn't have to work hard and know secret incantations to achieve results.
> 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 apology.
wow, I just dove into this via chatgpt and it was very interesting. I also found the use of sorry to mean something other than fault admission to be odd, never realised it was 2 cultures clashing
--
They often say "You and your family are in our prayers."
In Texas, the expression "You and your family are in our prayers" is commonly used at funerals instead of "sorry for your loss." This reflects the strong faith and community support present in the culture. Additionally, Texans might use phrases like "They're in a better place now" or "We're here for you," emphasizing spiritual comfort and solidarity.
the ambiguity exists in us english as well as english english, but i feel that in us english the implied acceptance of responsibility in 'i'm sorry' is somewhat stronger
Same with slack when it congratulates you for catching up on messages. Each app/service assumes you are able to take the afternoon off if you happen to have 0 widgets in your widget list.
I think, error messages should put way more focus on what can be done to make it work - rather than on what went wrong.
The user wants to achieve something, and the general job of the software is to help the user achieve their goal.
If the goal of the user is to book a flight - then the software throwing an error about the request form not being filled out correctly, basically constitutes a bureaucratic hurdle.
"You will not be allowed to book your flight, unless you ask for it in exactly the right way!"
Sadly, software often has to be bureaucratic about it's input - but that's not actually helpful to the user. So you could argue, when the software rejects the users request because of not meeting bureaucratic demands - the software is failing it's primary job: to help the user.
A perfect software would not have to show an error message ever - because it would be so good at guiding the user, that everyone would intuitively know how to do it correctly. But "Perfect" does not exist.
So any software will at some point inevitably fail to guide the user to their desired outcome and be forced to display an error message.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being apologetic in tone for failing to guide the user and putting such bureaucratic stumbling blocks in their way.
But the error message should be focused on helping the user. On making things work. It should not be condescending nor assigning blame. It should also be short and concise, and respect the user's time.
And that means that there's no space for polite verbiage and apologetic phrases.
So, apologetic tone is fine, if it can be done without increasing the length of the message.
> If the goal of the user is to book a flight - then the software throwing an error about the request form not being filled out correctly, basically constitutes a bureaucratic hurdle.
> "You will not be allowed to book your flight, unless you ask for it in exactly the right way!"
> Sadly, software often has to be bureaucratic about it's input - but that's not actually helpful to the user. So you could argue, when the software rejects the users request because of not meeting bureaucratic demands - the software is failing it's primary job: to help the user.
The booking software could provide a link that preserves the user entered from fields and creates a new session on this booking platform. That way it would reduce the friction created by the error. That is way more helpful than an apologetically phrased error message.
"Sorry, you do not have permission to access this feature. Please contact your administrator for assistance."
Is not an error message, in the sense that it is not displaying an error state of the application. It is informing the user that some feature they have somehow reached (maybe through a link sent by someone else?) is not available to them. The apologetical tone is not for a mistake that was made (there was no mistake made by the application in this case) but for the action of preventing them from accessing something that is available to others.
Readit News
"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 soapbox. It's icky.
And without "we", there can of course be no "we apologize".
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'm sure they found that real reassuring.
This predated the annoying :( which I think would have led him to break the computer after the second try
Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server. _That’s all we know._
"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.
The worst offender I have found is Lemonade Insurance which doesn’t even tack on the obligatory “bug fixes and performance improvements” at the end.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lemonade-insurance/id105565364...
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34812857
If I visit a website, "They" broke.
If my phone crashes, "It" broke.
My phone shouldn't say "we" - I don't grok the idea of people in there.
The website should say "we" - It's an organization presenting data, and I do believe there are people behind it.
My car shouldn't say "we" - My car is an "it", a thing that lives in my garage and I drive around.
NVIDIA drivers shouldn't say "we" - I'm running the program. I'm the agent. If anything, when I check for drivers, it should say "they have an update ready". The program is executing on my machine. It's mine. "They" are the people who publish updates. "We" (program and I) go fetch and install them.
But programs don't have agency - so if "it" can't fetch "their" update, then "Update could not be fetched" conveys all the info I need to know.
Then there's the "simpy" problem of always apologizing. For this reason I like TFA's final recommendation:
> Use the word “sorry” only in error messages that result in serious problems for the user (for example, data loss or inability to use the computer). Don’t apologize if the issue occurred during the normal functioning of the program (for example, if the user needs to wait for a network connection to be found).
Some years ago, the Google Voice app for Android would put a message in the notification bar whenever there was even the most brief connectivity issue (which in the early days of 3G on android was frequent) starting off with "We have a problem ... <connnecting to your google voice account or something>". Considering that I used that GV number for two highly regulated activities with potential high liability, my heart would skip a beat every time a pull out my phone and see "We have a problem".
I think that using "we" and "apologizing" is fair for most user-facing applications. It's kind of like the old adage: the customer is always right. Obviously the user wanted to accomplish something, and tried something to achieve it, but your software couldn't figure out what they wanted or didn't have enough information to do it, etc. So, it's kind of like a store clerk saying "I'm sorry; we're all out of that color dress."
Now, I would say this kind of "polite", human-centric, UI is not appropriate for e.g., sysadmin stuff like coreutils. I think it's perfectly fine if `cat /some/file` errors by saying "That file doesn't exist. Get bent."
Also, just to inject some unrelated cynicism... To your example about updating, I think with how pushy companies like Microsoft are with updates, it might actually be more accurate for them to say "We are updating your computer and enacting our will with your equipment."
Deleted Comment
And that BS is exactly why we have all those entitled adult babies now.
However, I can also see a case for the other point of view. In working on large enterprise systems that are being used by users who are not technical, the "we" helps reinforce the idea that things aren't outside of the users locus of control. There is an whole group of people employed by the organization behind the scenes that are part of the way the overall system works. So the "we" emphasizes that the system, the error, the people who write the system, the person trying to use the system, are all part of whatever they are trying to do together.
I still use "we" whenever I'm emailing clients, except now it's to sound like there is more than just me in this dept.
What about passive voice for the software error, then apologize with we in the name of whoever developed that software?
Strictly professionally, of course.
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.
I'm curious to know which line/operator you've heard this on.
I've got my own pet-peeve automated announcement though: "This is a National Rail security announcement..." Oh no! Is there a riot on the platform? Was someone assaulted? No, listen further: "...If you see something that doesn't look right, text the British Transport Police on 61016".
Like, that's not even a real announcement, and doesn't every passenger know the number by now??
P.S. I feel that it's right to note for those unfamiliar with the English railways that GWR are probably the most effective train operator in England, and that the delay I had wasn't their fault. Eurostar, having almost exclusive use of HS1 and the Channel Tunnel, don't have that excuse available, but they were still impeccablely professional.
But they are reaching into your computer and enacting their will. The passive voice strikes me as even ickier when it is used to amorphously shift blame into the ether. I would much rather read "sorry, we fucked and formatted your harddisk because we suck at programming" than "an error occurred and all your data is gone". Take some damn responsibility.
"site not found"
"software updating"
edit: better: "update in progress"
Amidst cyberspace vast,
Site elusive, lost in void,
Unreachable code.
(I could swear that one of these appeared in BeOS' NetPositive browser if you visited a site without network access... but now I'm not so sure.)
Edit: now I'm sure: https://8325.org/haiku/
>"Your computer is being updated."
But without the we, it is all passive voice. My English professors in college all hated passive voice.
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 guess that text like "Access denied" or "You don't have access" would feel too direct and may come off as rude in that context. A "sorry" would feel out of place. Perhaps "This page is access restricted" would be best, as it alludes to the user not having access without directly saying it.Conversely, I much prefer quick and direct communication with or without the apology: "[Sorry,] we don't have the beef burger."
I'd love to hear opinions of non-US and non-Westerners on this. We're in a thought bubble otherwise.
While it is hard to argue with succinctness of an error from such a simple program it may be better to say something like:
This says:1. What failed. (Couldn't open /etc/whatever)
2. Why it failed. (No such file or directory)
3. How this was handled (Fatal)
While I understand it "just works" in those cultures, simply redirecting while avoiding a negative response is one of those things that only works in a cultural context where it's expected... to me, it would be pretty confusing. I don't think that's because my culture promotes directness, but more that I lack the cultural background of expecting avoidance.
Autistic people in those cultures must have a pretty tough time.
It was confusing to me as well. But I am left wondering, is the directness of software frustrating people who culturally prefer indirect communication. I haven't seen anyone weigh in on that yet.
Taking that evasive speech approach, which is considered polite in one culture, to another culture may very well be rude. I usually consider it rude if some direct question is evaded instead of answered.
You may also start doing this and realize that you personally have a mismatch with one of the cultures you participate in, which may even help resolve some small social problems you didn't even realize you were causing by bucking the particular culture's practices.
Instead of him saying something like "fixing your bent spokes on a $120 bike isn't worth my time or your money" he just said "there is no problem" over and over again
"HN commenter" is already a much tighter bubble than "the West".
IMNSHO, dev-facing error messages bifurcate:
I'm administrator! :'-(
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 identify the purported speaker and intended listener. (i'm sorry my email was so long!) it is 'quoted speech', as when lisa says, 'and tanya was all, "i'm sooo drunk right now! oh my god, i'm like sooo sorrryyy!" and we laughed'; lisa is not apologizing, tanya is.
but what agent does a running computer program represent? or, on whose behalf are its error mesages speaking?
— ⁂ —
in the case of, for example, a built-in macos program, this is clear: it represents apple, the corporation, a fictitious collective identity like the dread pirate roberts, anonymous, or bourbaki. in exchange for your money, apple is providing you a service by allowing you to run that software on the computer you nominally bought. the computer program, written or at least patched together by apple programmers, speaks with apple's voice
therefore, if apple cannot fulfill your request, it would be polite for apple to express regret, in the program's error message, for letting your hopes down. perhaps it could include a link to the web site where you can purchase the permission to use 'your' computer to think the thoughts you are not currently licensed to think in it. this applies generally to proprietary software that you are not allowed to fix, as vanderZwan suggests. (even if you can figure out how to fix it, apple is responsible for making that unnecessarily difficult by, for example, not supplying you source code and checking executable signatures.)
— ⁂ —
traditionally, though, on conventional timesharing operating systems like unix, the programs are considered to be an extension of the user's mind, as a bicycle is an extension of their body, and thus they represent the user's agency; they carry out the user's own will, not the will of their programmers. a program that carries out the will of its programmer, where it conflicts with the will of its user, is considered a 'trojan horse' or 'malicious', with narrow exceptions; and strong social sanctions are attached to distributing such programs. the protection mechanisms in the operating system simply assume they don't exist
so, in that social context, if a program is speaking to you, it is speaking to you on your own behalf, like a note you have left yourself in your day planner. perhaps tex does not have enough string space to interpret a given document, because you compiled it to have less string space than that, or perhaps you chose to use a copy of tex a colleague of yours compiled, to save the time and disk quota of compiling it yourself. that is no different from your example of contradictory declarations in the input; all that is needed is pointers to the mutually inconsistent limits (ran out of string space at bar.tex line 5329, string space size is defined in foo.web line 30213, compiled on 01994-10-31 from the source tree in /u3/schaker/new-tex)
should cannondale apologize to you when you fall off your bicycle, or arrive late to a meeting, or ride into a slum and get mugged? if you open the kitchen cabinet to get the table salt, and find that you have left it in the dining room, will you apologize to yourself? when you reserve time in your day planner for a meeting you expect to be unpleasant, does the calendar entry begin with "i'm sorry"? should don knuth apologize for not making the string size allocation larger? surely not. even schaker probably should not; if you want a larger string size allocation, you can recompile tex yourself almost as easily as schaker can
but it depends on the social context. perhaps if schaker is responsible for maintaining the tex installation all the math professors use, the error message should include his email address so they can request a dilation of their tex
— ⁂ —
in general, in free software† the app's programmers are not responsible for its behavior, unless they have somehow contrived to conceal it. you, the user, are fully empowered to modify the app to manifest your own agency, and responsible for doing so. so the traditional timesharing situation holds
a precondition for a sincere apology is accepting responsibility for the situation being apologized for—which implies that the intended recipient of the apology does not have that responsibility. in free software, a maximally uncharitable interpretation of an error message (other than for an internal bug) saying 'i apologize for' (or, worse, 'we apologize for') is a red flag that the developer is a renegade who rejects this social contract; they are attempting to arrogate the right to determine what you may and may not do with your computer, by virtue of having written some of the software you are trying to use to do it. like ayn rand, they consider themself an atlas on whose shoulders the mere user is generously permitted to ride, as long as they do not shrug. they consider 'trojan horses' to be normal software. this is not a collegial or collaborative relationship
but that is a maximally uncharitable interpretation. perhaps the programmer is apologizing because they felt that they left a job half done, or they would have liked to find a smoother way to handle a different situation, and just couldn't figure one out. or perhaps the "sorry" is not really an apology, accepting responsibility, but merely an expression of sympathy for the users who find themselves in an unfortunate situation, without respect to whose responsibility it is
but, with respect to error message design, it is an immense blunder to generalize from the social context of proprietary software like xcode to the social context of free software like gcc
of course, in some situations, free software on a shared computer is instead an instrument of some office administrator or similar, who is the agent responsible for the unfortunate situation that might merit an apology. in that case the desk phone number and email address of that administrator ought to be included in the error message, in the interest of solving the problem as expeditiously as possible if it is urgent to the user
— ⁂ —
while it can be amusing for computer programs to present us a theater in which various personages portray different personalities—some servile, some compassionate, some aggressive—artistically that can be done well or poorly, and it is important for the user to understand that these personages are fictional, and that a conventional computer program is merely an instrument, not an agent
different users' tastes in such theater may vary; judging from popular novels, movies, tv shows, video games, and rap music, most prefer fiction containing passionate, aggressive personages who struggle to the death. portraying such personages in error messages would surely be entertaining (japanese video games often do this, launching insults at the player character when the player suffers a misfortune they could have avoided) but it might occasionally cause difficulties when a user appears who does not understand that the program is not itself an agent, and anyway if done without artistic skill it will not be entertaining at all
on the other hand, the stackexchange thread seems to recommend always portraying agents in error messages and always making them servile. this compounds that risk rather than ameliorating it: it is commonly done without enough artistic skill to render it entertaining; it adds the extra challenge of making a servile personage sympathetic rather than merely irritating; and the motivation given in the stackexchange thread insults the user by the unspoken implication that they are unable to distinguish the fictional personage portrayed in a computer program from a real sentient agent—an implication that may not be apparent from a single error message, but which will surely become evident over time unless the user is very small or socially handicapped
______
† perhaps we should rename free software 'nontoxic software', given that the movement to rename it 'open source' has not been as successful as was hoped, and 'free software' was always unavoidably a very confusing term
we deeply regret this error
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 incorrectly. Guiding someone into an assumption is harmful and a waste of time, if not dangerous.
I understand that consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing (we should strive for the most idiot proof interface possible), but that design principle is useless when things go wrong and you need to fix it.
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".
> 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 about keeping the same power but making it easier for intelligent people without experience to come in and pick it up and predict how it will work. Good UX is about making the abstractions cleaner and the tools more extensible to allow the same power to be used in more situations. Good UX is about settling the existing tools to allow even more power to be added, or built on top of them, without them collapsing. Good UX is about making the same power lower activation effort to use so you can focus less on setting up the tooling and more on the problem space. Good UX is about making it easier for idiots to use it, but not at the expense of experts. Good UX is about making a problem go away completely so nobody needs any tooling or to waste any time on it.
> "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"."
That's a terrible UX. There's nobody helped by you feeling clever for understanding an inaccurate error message and looking down on people who don't understand it. Putting a clear and accurate error isn't "dumbing down". That's the fear that you would feel dumb if you didn't have to work hard and know secret incantations to achieve results.
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 apology.
Sorry to drop by like this.
Funerals must be bewildering for them. How do they phrase "I'm sorry for your loss"?
--
They often say "You and your family are in our prayers."
In Texas, the expression "You and your family are in our prayers" is commonly used at funerals instead of "sorry for your loss." This reflects the strong faith and community support present in the culture. Additionally, Texans might use phrases like "They're in a better place now" or "We're here for you," emphasizing spiritual comfort and solidarity.
You don't apologize, you sympathize and empathize. You say what you actually mean. It depends on if you know the deceased as well, but if you don't:
- I was so sad to hear about your loss.
- I am sending you my deepest condolences for your loss.
- I am keeping you in my thoughts and prayers.
- May their memory be a blessing.
- May they rest in peace.
- They will be missed.
- I know you must be hurting. I am here for you if you need me.
"I apologize for your loss".
I'm not a native speaker but I feel like Americans would say that too.
We don’t have those here!
I feel the Chrome dinosaur kicked those off, and I do (did?) like the dino. But "it's not you, it's us" is very annoying. "We made a booboo UwU".
When something has gone wrong I really don't want to feel I'm being marketed to, I just want information!
> OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!
(https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oopsie-woopsie)
Well that's great if you worship Inbox Zero. But what about me?
Maybe I'm anxiously waiting for news on a family member's illness and hospitalization.
Maybe I'm waiting for my lawyer to get back to me on an important case.
It's not hard to imagine any number of circumstances where I would not say "hooray!" when I see my inbox is empty.
The user wants to achieve something, and the general job of the software is to help the user achieve their goal.
If the goal of the user is to book a flight - then the software throwing an error about the request form not being filled out correctly, basically constitutes a bureaucratic hurdle.
"You will not be allowed to book your flight, unless you ask for it in exactly the right way!"
Sadly, software often has to be bureaucratic about it's input - but that's not actually helpful to the user. So you could argue, when the software rejects the users request because of not meeting bureaucratic demands - the software is failing it's primary job: to help the user.
A perfect software would not have to show an error message ever - because it would be so good at guiding the user, that everyone would intuitively know how to do it correctly. But "Perfect" does not exist.
So any software will at some point inevitably fail to guide the user to their desired outcome and be forced to display an error message.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being apologetic in tone for failing to guide the user and putting such bureaucratic stumbling blocks in their way.
But the error message should be focused on helping the user. On making things work. It should not be condescending nor assigning blame. It should also be short and concise, and respect the user's time.
And that means that there's no space for polite verbiage and apologetic phrases.
So, apologetic tone is fine, if it can be done without increasing the length of the message.
“ERROR: Database query returned 0 rows”
versus
“ERROR: Database query returned 0 rows but need 2 or more rows for this operation. Ensure $other_etl has successfully ingested the data.”
> "You will not be allowed to book your flight, unless you ask for it in exactly the right way!"
> Sadly, software often has to be bureaucratic about it's input - but that's not actually helpful to the user. So you could argue, when the software rejects the users request because of not meeting bureaucratic demands - the software is failing it's primary job: to help the user.
The booking software could provide a link that preserves the user entered from fields and creates a new session on this booking platform. That way it would reduce the friction created by the error. That is way more helpful than an apologetically phrased error message.
"Sorry, you do not have permission to access this feature. Please contact your administrator for assistance."
Is not an error message, in the sense that it is not displaying an error state of the application. It is informing the user that some feature they have somehow reached (maybe through a link sent by someone else?) is not available to them. The apologetical tone is not for a mistake that was made (there was no mistake made by the application in this case) but for the action of preventing them from accessing something that is available to others.