5 ms·

Well, you can also have both. Most tools should be prescriptive unless you have to go really deep and do your own. If you have the expertise, it might be ok for

by slx26 6y ago

Well, you can also have both. Most tools should be prescriptive unless you have to go really deep and do your own. If you have the expertise, it might be ok for you to choose the rules of what you are doing. If you are not, being guided it's much better. I agree with the general idea of the article, but I also think it would have been interesting to discuss more in depth where each approach can be relevant. Making things accessible doesn't only require knowledge and features, but years of insight and clarity of thought. You want to benefit from that while you are new, because it will make your life much easier until you reach the point where you really want to choose on your own.

swiley 6y ago
> Most tools should be prescriptive unless you have to go really deep and do your own. Absolutely not. Compare most WiFi connection UIs to WPA_supplicant. On windows: 'connection failed' On wpa_supplicant: 'associating... atempting authentication... getting dhcpc lease... dhcp timed out' One says "sorry computer doesn't work" and the other tells you what you need to deal with the problem. Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive.
- bosie 6y ago
  > Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. that goes both ways. if you show the wpa_supplicant message, my mother wouldn't even understand if she is connected or not. nor would she gain anything by that information. you just came up with the other side of the same coin of terrible UX.
  - rapind 6y ago
    This is true and yet I wonder how much more efficient it would be when they call me for help. “It said a bunch of gobbledygook that ended with dhcp timeout”, or “it just says connection failed”.
    - bosie 6y ago
      or have some sort of a middle ground. 'not connected. more info: blah #32893289327". Microsoft did something similar with an error code that you could google. that was super useful for debugging. the error message was in laymen terms though.
      - Groxx 6y ago
        Makes things much easier to search for too, as those IDs don't need to change across languages or UI refreshes (which may e.g. rewrite the error messages, breaking all those old searchable phrases), both internally (unambiguous to grep!) and externally (google / stackoverflow / etc). And users are FAR more likely to read them back correctly to support, instead of saying what they think the message says (every tech-support-person has had to deal with this some number of times). Error IDs on everything, please.
    - recursive 6y ago
      > “It said a bunch of gobbledygook that ended with dhcp timeout” I've done a little end-user support, and this is a pretty optimistic take on what you'd get. It would probably be more like "It didn't work." in both cases. Maybe you'd get "there was an error message" Q: What do you see on your screen? A: Nothing Q: Try again and tell me what happens. A: It didn't work and I still don't see anything. Many people have an automatic reactions to any kind of error or message. They get dismissed automatically. It seems that some people don't even realize they're doing it.
      - cratermoon 6y ago
        The reason this happens is because users reason that if the program worked but had a problem, it would not show "an error". They see so many errors they can't do anything about, they just dismiss them and look at the non-erroring program for guidance. Users then see an "error" that pops up as being an error that's getting in the way of seeing the problem. A good program doesn't say "that was an error", because users are now habituated to assuming the error is nothing they can do about, and ignore it. A good program just gives feedback as if it were performing normally. A good program simply says, implicitly because it's not framed as a problem, "You wanted to do X and expected a Y but got a Z because.."
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    >> On windows: 'connection failed' >> On wpa_supplicant: 'associating... atempting authentication... getting dhcpc lease... dhcp timed out' >> One says "sorry computer doesn't work" and the other tells you what you need to deal with the problem. Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. > that goes both ways. if you show the wpa_supplicant message, my mother wouldn't even understand if she is connected or not. nor would she gain anything by that information. you just came up with the other side of the same coin of terrible UX. Yes, you need both. When I write error messages, I try to combine a "user friendly" summary with more technical information and a suggested action, e.g.: "Wifi connection failed: dhcp timed out. Try reconnecting or checking the router's configuration." If you don't communicate both, someone's going to be frustrated. And even nontechnical people who have no idea what DHCP is benefit from mentioning it in the message, since it gives them something to Google.
    - macintux 6y ago
      Not for everyone. There are no small number of people who will simply shut down when they see a very technical error message, even if it’s prefaced with the simplified version.
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > Not for everyone. There are no small number of people who will simply shut down when they see a very technical error message, even if it’s prefaced with the simplified version. Honestly, I think those people can't be helped. They're technically helpless and catering to them makes everyone else as helpless as they are, which is a net loss.
        macintux 6y ago
        Or we could recognize that not everyone can cope with it and instead supply an error code instead of a string of technobabble. We don't say "those people can't be helped" about people who are blind or deaf. Well, we shouldn't. Many web designers seem to feel that way, though.
- fouric 6y ago
  > Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. Yet another logically-vacuous emotionally-manipulative statement. The equally-manipulative counter-argument to that is "You're not emphasizing with the users - how would YOU like for, say, government bureaucrats to give you back a bunch of technical gibberish instead of telling you how you filled out the form incorrectly in plain English?" Use logic instead. I think that it's easy to build interfaces that are friendly to both power users and non-power-users - talk about the possibility of that using logic instead of trying to manipulate the emotions of others to shame them into agreeing with you.
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    Simple solution is a "connection failed" message with a "view technical details" option. Which is generally the best idea, sensible defaults and usability for the average user and as much customization/technical stuff as is appropriate for power users.
  - rapind 6y ago
    I agree, except specifically when it involves government. I actually don’t want them to hide details, but that’s because I don’t want them handling super complicated stuff most of the time. Gives them too much room to hide.
  - reificator 6y ago
    > I think that it's easy to build interfaces that are friendly to both power users and non-power-users All of the software I have ever used fits into one of three categories: * Tipped in favor of power users and frustrating to laymen * Tipped in favor of laymen and frustrating to power users * Frustrating to both laymen and power users If it's so easy, what's a good example of software that rides the line well? EDIT: And even within this dichotomy both groups are pretty fuzzy. Is a layman someone who doesn't know how something works, or someone who just wants to do the basics? Is a power-user someone who wants to customize, or someone who wants to optimize?
    - emj 6y ago
- pjmlp 6y ago
  For most users the wpa_supplicat messages could even be a foreign language for what they can get out of it.
- thrower123 6y ago
  Unfortunately people will actively refuse to read any kind of diagnostic information that you do output to them, as I have learned during over a decade of doing troubleshooting sessions with customers. If you're having a good day, you can get them to leave a pop-up error message open for long enough to read the whole thing on the third or fourth attempt. On a good day...

by slx26 6y ago

swiley 6y ago

> Most tools should be prescriptive unless you have to go really deep and do your own. Absolutely not. Compare most WiFi connection UIs to WPA_supplicant. On windows: 'connection failed' On wpa_supplicant: 'associating... atempting authentication... getting dhcpc lease... dhcp timed out' One says "sorry computer doesn't work" and the other tells you what you need to deal with the problem. Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive.

bosie 6y ago
> Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. that goes both ways. if you show the wpa_supplicant message, my mother wouldn't even understand if she is connected or not. nor would she gain anything by that information. you just came up with the other side of the same coin of terrible UX.
- rapind 6y ago
  This is true and yet I wonder how much more efficient it would be when they call me for help. “It said a bunch of gobbledygook that ended with dhcp timeout”, or “it just says connection failed”.
  - bosie 6y ago
    or have some sort of a middle ground. 'not connected. more info: blah #32893289327". Microsoft did something similar with an error code that you could google. that was super useful for debugging. the error message was in laymen terms though.
    - Groxx 6y ago
      Makes things much easier to search for too, as those IDs don't need to change across languages or UI refreshes (which may e.g. rewrite the error messages, breaking all those old searchable phrases), both internally (unambiguous to grep!) and externally (google / stackoverflow / etc). And users are FAR more likely to read them back correctly to support, instead of saying what they think the message says (every tech-support-person has had to deal with this some number of times). Error IDs on everything, please.
  - recursive 6y ago
    > “It said a bunch of gobbledygook that ended with dhcp timeout” I've done a little end-user support, and this is a pretty optimistic take on what you'd get. It would probably be more like "It didn't work." in both cases. Maybe you'd get "there was an error message" Q: What do you see on your screen? A: Nothing Q: Try again and tell me what happens. A: It didn't work and I still don't see anything. Many people have an automatic reactions to any kind of error or message. They get dismissed automatically. It seems that some people don't even realize they're doing it.
    - cratermoon 6y ago
      The reason this happens is because users reason that if the program worked but had a problem, it would not show "an error". They see so many errors they can't do anything about, they just dismiss them and look at the non-erroring program for guidance. Users then see an "error" that pops up as being an error that's getting in the way of seeing the problem. A good program doesn't say "that was an error", because users are now habituated to assuming the error is nothing they can do about, and ignore it. A good program just gives feedback as if it were performing normally. A good program simply says, implicitly because it's not framed as a problem, "You wanted to do X and expected a Y but got a Z because.."
- tablespoon 6y ago
  >> On windows: 'connection failed' >> On wpa_supplicant: 'associating... atempting authentication... getting dhcpc lease... dhcp timed out' >> One says "sorry computer doesn't work" and the other tells you what you need to deal with the problem. Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. > that goes both ways. if you show the wpa_supplicant message, my mother wouldn't even understand if she is connected or not. nor would she gain anything by that information. you just came up with the other side of the same coin of terrible UX. Yes, you need both. When I write error messages, I try to combine a "user friendly" summary with more technical information and a suggested action, e.g.: "Wifi connection failed: dhcp timed out. Try reconnecting or checking the router's configuration." If you don't communicate both, someone's going to be frustrated. And even nontechnical people who have no idea what DHCP is benefit from mentioning it in the message, since it gives them something to Google.
  - macintux 6y ago
    Not for everyone. There are no small number of people who will simply shut down when they see a very technical error message, even if it’s prefaced with the simplified version.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Not for everyone. There are no small number of people who will simply shut down when they see a very technical error message, even if it’s prefaced with the simplified version. Honestly, I think those people can't be helped. They're technically helpless and catering to them makes everyone else as helpless as they are, which is a net loss.
      - macintux 6y ago
        Or we could recognize that not everyone can cope with it and instead supply an error code instead of a string of technobabble. We don't say "those people can't be helped" about people who are blind or deaf. Well, we shouldn't. Many web designers seem to feel that way, though.
fouric 6y ago
> Stop infantilising users, it's disrespectful and counter productive. Yet another logically-vacuous emotionally-manipulative statement. The equally-manipulative counter-argument to that is "You're not emphasizing with the users - how would YOU like for, say, government bureaucrats to give you back a bunch of technical gibberish instead of telling you how you filled out the form incorrectly in plain English?" Use logic instead. I think that it's easy to build interfaces that are friendly to both power users and non-power-users - talk about the possibility of that using logic instead of trying to manipulate the emotions of others to shame them into agreeing with you.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  Simple solution is a "connection failed" message with a "view technical details" option. Which is generally the best idea, sensible defaults and usability for the average user and as much customization/technical stuff as is appropriate for power users.
- rapind 6y ago
  I agree, except specifically when it involves government. I actually don’t want them to hide details, but that’s because I don’t want them handling super complicated stuff most of the time. Gives them too much room to hide.
- reificator 6y ago
  > I think that it's easy to build interfaces that are friendly to both power users and non-power-users All of the software I have ever used fits into one of three categories: * Tipped in favor of power users and frustrating to laymen * Tipped in favor of laymen and frustrating to power users * Frustrating to both laymen and power users If it's so easy, what's a good example of software that rides the line well? EDIT: And even within this dichotomy both groups are pretty fuzzy. Is a layman someone who doesn't know how something works, or someone who just wants to do the basics? Is a power-user someone who wants to customize, or someone who wants to optimize?
  - emj 6y ago
pjmlp 6y ago
For most users the wpa_supplicat messages could even be a foreign language for what they can get out of it.
thrower123 6y ago
Unfortunately people will actively refuse to read any kind of diagnostic information that you do output to them, as I have learned during over a decade of doing troubleshooting sessions with customers. If you're having a good day, you can get them to leave a pop-up error message open for long enough to read the whole thing on the third or fourth attempt. On a good day...