5 ms·

To me, that would certainly be less irritating than the artificially friendly, helpful, engaging tone of the current product.

layer8 4y ago
One particular point being the “we” style of communication (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/writing-style#addressing-the-user https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/w...). It only occurs to me now that Microsoft apparently intends “we” to include the user, while in reality it comes across as “we the people behind this software”.
- MichaelDickens 4y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading it but it sounds like your intuitive interpretation is correct? > Always address the user as "you." > > Use "we" to refer to your own perspective. It's welcoming and helps the user feel like part of the experience. Sounds to me like "you" = user, "we" = the app.
  - layer8 4y ago
    How is that “welcoming and helps the user feel like part of the experience”? It introduces a “you vs. us” dichotomy, with a touch of “we are are a group and you’re just one person”, and more often than not also “we know better what’s good for you”. Since the app is obviously not a “we”, it also suggests that it’s people doing stuff to your device and your data (“we’re setting up some things for you”), which feels intrusive. The user doesn’t want “them” to meddle with his/her stuff, they want a neutral tool that just works and does what it’s told to do.
    - astrobe_ 4y ago
      My feelings exactly. Plus, in some languages "We" can be used in place of "I" by royals (and other people with a high opinion of themselves) - as in the famous "We are not amused" |1]. That's true in my native language too. Well, perhaps we are not the target audience; I suppose MS and others made UX studies before adopting that style. "We, the computer nerds" have maybe a better idea of what's going on under the hood, so those "user illusion" [2] tricks don't work on us. [1] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/we-are-not-amused.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/we-are-not-amused.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusion [3] [3] https://asktog.com/papers/magic.html https://asktog.com/papers/magic.html
wyager 4y ago
I was reading the new Apple app UI guidelines, and under the section about "inclusive language" it basically said "You are not to make jokes. You must speak as if to an idiot. You must write like a PR release.". Horrible stuff. Absolutely not utilitarian to make all software products bland corporate pablum in the name of not offending people.
- paulcole 4y ago
  Curious if you have a link so we can read what it actually says rather than your interpretation?
  - wyager 4y ago
    Google is your friend! "Apple inclusive language guidelines", first result. Specific quotes: > Avoid using specialized or technical terms without defining them. Using specialized or technical terms can make your writing more succinct, but doing so excludes people who don’t know what the terms mean. > Replace colloquial expressions with plain language. > Consider carefully before including humor. ... Including humor in your app risks confusing people who donʼt understand it, irritating people who tire of repeatedly encountering it, and insulting people who interpret it differently.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      > Google is your friend! This is literally what they’re talking about avoiding. Not surprised at your reaction. And not surprised that the advice they offer is generally quite good.
    - heywoodlh 4y ago
      This actually seems like solid advice for communicating, generally -- I don't get the feeling that this is overly-sensitive to not offending people. > Avoid using specialized or technical terms without defining them. I try to do this even when speaking to technical individuals. It may make things more verbose but I appreciate it when others simplify as much as possible. > Including humor [risks confusing, irritating or insulting people] I have definitely seen jokes by myself or others completely fall flat, get misinterpreted or derail conversations. I could see how the Human Interface Guidelines[1] do feel a bit overboard in trying to be politically correct when you realize these are just suggestions for creating apps. But if app developers used most of the advice more frequently I feel like apps generally would be higher quality. Like, why not try to keep things simple and language as kind as possible? [1] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/foundations/inclusion https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
userbinator 4y ago
I would probably LOL if I saw it happen while I was using it. In the early 90s, a lot of software tended to have "character" like this.

layer8 4y ago

One particular point being the “we” style of communication (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/writing-style#addressing-the-user https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/design/style/w...). It only occurs to me now that Microsoft apparently intends “we” to include the user, while in reality it comes across as “we the people behind this software”.

MichaelDickens 4y ago
Maybe I'm misreading it but it sounds like your intuitive interpretation is correct? > Always address the user as "you." > > Use "we" to refer to your own perspective. It's welcoming and helps the user feel like part of the experience. Sounds to me like "you" = user, "we" = the app.
- layer8 4y ago
  How is that “welcoming and helps the user feel like part of the experience”? It introduces a “you vs. us” dichotomy, with a touch of “we are are a group and you’re just one person”, and more often than not also “we know better what’s good for you”. Since the app is obviously not a “we”, it also suggests that it’s people doing stuff to your device and your data (“we’re setting up some things for you”), which feels intrusive. The user doesn’t want “them” to meddle with his/her stuff, they want a neutral tool that just works and does what it’s told to do.
  - astrobe_ 4y ago
    My feelings exactly. Plus, in some languages "We" can be used in place of "I" by royals (and other people with a high opinion of themselves) - as in the famous "We are not amused" |1]. That's true in my native language too. Well, perhaps we are not the target audience; I suppose MS and others made UX studies before adopting that style. "We, the computer nerds" have maybe a better idea of what's going on under the hood, so those "user illusion" [2] tricks don't work on us. [1] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/we-are-not-amused.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/we-are-not-amused.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusion [3] [3] https://asktog.com/papers/magic.html https://asktog.com/papers/magic.html

wyager 4y ago

I was reading the new Apple app UI guidelines, and under the section about "inclusive language" it basically said "You are not to make jokes. You must speak as if to an idiot. You must write like a PR release.". Horrible stuff. Absolutely not utilitarian to make all software products bland corporate pablum in the name of not offending people.

paulcole 4y ago
Curious if you have a link so we can read what it actually says rather than your interpretation?
- wyager 4y ago
  Google is your friend! "Apple inclusive language guidelines", first result. Specific quotes: > Avoid using specialized or technical terms without defining them. Using specialized or technical terms can make your writing more succinct, but doing so excludes people who don’t know what the terms mean. > Replace colloquial expressions with plain language. > Consider carefully before including humor. ... Including humor in your app risks confusing people who donʼt understand it, irritating people who tire of repeatedly encountering it, and insulting people who interpret it differently.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > Google is your friend! This is literally what they’re talking about avoiding. Not surprised at your reaction. And not surprised that the advice they offer is generally quite good.
  - heywoodlh 4y ago
    This actually seems like solid advice for communicating, generally -- I don't get the feeling that this is overly-sensitive to not offending people. > Avoid using specialized or technical terms without defining them. I try to do this even when speaking to technical individuals. It may make things more verbose but I appreciate it when others simplify as much as possible. > Including humor [risks confusing, irritating or insulting people] I have definitely seen jokes by myself or others completely fall flat, get misinterpreted or derail conversations. I could see how the Human Interface Guidelines[1] do feel a bit overboard in trying to be politically correct when you realize these are just suggestions for creating apps. But if app developers used most of the advice more frequently I feel like apps generally would be higher quality. Like, why not try to keep things simple and language as kind as possible? [1] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/foundations/inclusion https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

userbinator 4y ago

I would probably LOL if I saw it happen while I was using it. In the early 90s, a lot of software tended to have "character" like this.