3 ms·
>> On windows: 'connection failed' >> On wpa_supplicant: 'associating... atempting authentication... getting dhcpc lease... dhcp timed out' >> One says "sorry
by 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 agoNot 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 agoOr 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.
- swiley 6y agoWe do say it about people who are too lazy to tie their shoes though.
- tablespoon 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. How is an impenetrable technical error code less scary than a pithy description of the actual problem? Eg. "Wifi connection failed: dhcp timed out. Try reconnecting or checking the router's configuration." vs "Wifi connection failed: Code -49291994. Try reconnecting or checking the router's configuration." For a real world example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveward/69888365 https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveward/69888365 I'm not talking about dumping a stacktrace or dropping them into a debugger. > We don't say "those people can't be helped" about people who are blind or deaf. We also don't gouge out the eyes of sighted people because blind people exist, either.
- etripe 6y agoI don't think they're so much technically helpless as they self-identify as technological victims. They don't see the I in solution. As such, there is no catering to them.
- astrange 6y agoIME the problem with these suggested actions is they never help or are the real problem; it's basically just thoughts and prayers. When something on my wifi doesn't work, I'm either too far from the network, my router is glitching because it's too hot and doesn't have enough cooling, or there's a bug in the client that only a Broadcom firmware engineer can fix. None of these can be fixed by poking a configuration. The worst example I run into is when you get a notice that someone has tried and failed to login to your Gmail/iCloud/etc account, it tells you to change your password in the helpful suggestions. Why would you do that?