Timeline for Should error messages apologize?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2018 at 17:22 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | «For example, “incompatible” translates to “does not work together” in plain English.» That's a pretty crazy suggestion. Firstly, practically everybody knows what "incompatible" means, and it's not a phrase specific to technology. Secondly, what a babying replacement phrase! | |
| S Jul 17, 2014 at 19:06 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Page has moved
|
| Jul 17, 2014 at 18:41 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2014 at 19:06 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2014 at 9:14 | comment | added | Dakkaron | I am not so sure about that one. For example, I totally hate that "He's dead Jim", that Chrome gives me when it crashes. It's there trying to be funny while I am like "Why the hell did it crash AGAIN??". Worse than that is only the Windows 8 bluescreen, that just shows a sad smiley while removing all useful information the original bluescreen had. On the old bluescreen you could see what program caused the error, while the new one treats the user like a child. | |
| S Jan 19, 2014 at 18:52 | history | suggested | David Miani | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed broken link for the "are you saying no when you should be saying yes" article
|
| Jan 19, 2014 at 18:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 19, 2014 at 18:52 | |||||
| S Aug 1, 2013 at 7:47 | history | suggested | Assaf Lavie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed broken link
|
| Aug 1, 2013 at 6:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 1, 2013 at 7:47 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2013 at 7:09 | comment | added | JClaussFTW | As a general rule, software should be "apologetic" when it is unable to abide by the user's command because it reinforces the relationship of the machine as the subordinate and the human as master. Too many tech companies (Apple, I'm looking in your direction) make the mistake of thinking that the human is the subservient one to the technology. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 15:18 | comment | added | ZeroOne | @MANCHUCK Try two positives to make a negative: "You think you can access that? Yeah, right." ;) | |
| Jan 7, 2013 at 22:53 | vote | accept | JoelFan | ||
| Jan 7, 2013 at 16:05 | comment | added | MANCHUCK | I worked help desk that did not allow us to "use negative words" It makes you sound like an idiot when you are restricted from using words like "Don't, no, should, cant etc" How would one state that a user has no access to something with out a negative word? | |
| Jan 7, 2013 at 15:54 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2013 at 21:18 | comment | added | Graham Herrli | @Mervin Wow, you added a lot of additional research in your last two edits. Very nice! +1 | |
| Jan 6, 2013 at 14:57 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2622 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2013 at 14:51 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2622 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2013 at 15:00 | comment | added | O. Jones | @LightnessRacesinOrbit, the OP's scenario is a selling opportunity. The particular user is attempting to use an aspect of the program for which she isn't licensed. Why not treat her with respect? Of course, a system might say "would you like a 5-day trial of this feature?" | |
| Jan 5, 2013 at 14:23 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit |
you still respect his action But I don't. He's trying to access something he has no right to access. I don't respect this at all!
|
|
| Jan 5, 2013 at 4:17 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2013 at 1:31 | comment | added | ajacian81 | Not to sound like a troll, but uxmatters.com can be taken more seriously if their site wasn't so hideous and hard on the eyes! | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 20:56 | comment | added | Andy | I find this rational interesting. I'm curious though if there's an unintended effect of training the user to blame your program even why they are doing something improperly. Would they start to get the attitude of "this program is junk?" | |
| S Jan 4, 2013 at 20:16 | history | suggested | Graham Herrli | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed the chatty beginning line
|
| Jan 4, 2013 at 19:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 4, 2013 at 20:16 | |||||
| S Jan 4, 2013 at 19:20 | history | suggested | Jon Purdy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor formatting cleanups.
|
| Jan 4, 2013 at 19:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 4, 2013 at 19:20 | |||||
| Jan 4, 2013 at 19:08 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2013 at 16:01 | history | edited | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 590 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2013 at 15:57 | comment | added | Mervin | Not academically but a postitive message can be conveyed with the help of an apology as it helps in mitigating the frustration and informs the user that he can recover from this error. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | Graham Herrli | Can you support the assertion that a "positive tone [is] an apologetic response"? In the chapter I cited in my answer (academia.edu/395470/…), the researchers assumed that there were three response types: positive, negative, and mechanical, where apology falls under the category of a response with a negative tone. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 15:38 | history | answered | Mervin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |