3 ms·

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 sim

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.
  - swiley 6y ago
    We 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 ago
  I 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.

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.
- swiley 6y ago
  We 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 ago
I 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.