4 ms·

I think you're conflating two different things. In an error message on the Internet, "You broke our server" vs "Our server doesn't know how to respond to your

I think you're conflating two different things. In an error message on the Internet, "You broke our server" vs "Our server doesn't know how to respond to your input, our bad" is not a power play, it's a bad error message. Knowing who caused the issue helps the user figure out what to do next. 401/403? Better login/better annoy my boss for access. 5xx? Oh their server's broken, I'll try again later.

layer8 4y ago
There is no need to insert a “we” group here. The user isn’t interested that it is “our” server. The user doesn’t think in terms of there being people behind the service. He/she is using the service, period. Introducing a group of other people only sets up an inappropriate social dynamics. It feels like the developers are self-inserting themselves into an interaction that is really only between the user and the service. Imagine you are using a ticket machine at the train station, the machine happens to malfunction, and it displays “sorry, our ticket machine is broken”. That is just weird, because the user is only interacting with the ticket machine, not with people operating the machine. It’s not like you’re at the restaurant and the waiter is saying “sorry, our credit card terminal is broken” (which would be an appropriate situation to say something like that). Rather, the ticket machine should display something along the lines of “System malfunction, please retry after pressing the red button. Apologies for the inconvenience.” And similar in the case of a server software.
- hamdouni 4y ago
  We can use "I" then. "404 I don't find your page" "501 I'm broken"
- rozenmd 4y ago
  Ah, I see
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  That the user doesn't think in terms of there being people is not a good thing. Compare "sorry, our ticket machine is broken" to the impersonal "System malfunction, please retry". The impersonal version waves any responsibility of the malfuction away. Was it the user? Was it the machine? Was it the machine's owner? Nobody knows. With "our machine", there's a clear message sent about the accountability of the situation: there is someone owning the machine, and they failed to provide you service. Ideally, there would be contact information, so that the user has the ability to influence their surroundings. A machine is not a law of nature, and should not be treated as such. Heck, a law of nature which gets in the way - a fallen tree, a stray stone - can usually be fixed/moved/destroyed without fear about civil liability. A malfunctioning machine will ruin your day without you being able to do anything about it.
  - layer8 4y ago
    That a machine or a service has an owner is self-evident, and I’m all for providing contact information or whatever for the entity behind it. This gives the user the choice of whether they want to enter into communication with them. But I don’t want them to speak to me through the machine or tool. As already mentioned, it’s like they are self-inserting themselves into the interaction the user has with the tool. It makes the use of the tool less intimate for the user, because suddenly there’s a third party mediating that interaction. It can feel like intruding into the user’s privacy and autonomy. In the Microsoft/Windows case, it certainly often feels like that. It’s bad enough for users when they don’t own the tool (as they would in case of a purchased local software) and only have temporary permission to use it, but they still like to think “this is my tool I’m using”, e.g. this is my Dropbox or my Google Sheet or my video game. A third party speaking through it however breaks that illusion, as it clearly brings the awareness of who’s really in control. The other thing is that the user knows that it’s just a stock message, in which case any emotional expression put into it can feel disingenuous.
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      I think the problem I responded to is of the ticket machine. The ticket machine is the property of the second party, and an agent for it, so hiding that is disingenious at best, and misleading at worst. Your computer should be (although often isn't) doing things on your behalf, and only yours. There, the insertion would be jarring, and an encroachment. I'm not quite sure where on that spectrum stand services which deliberately insert themselves between you and your data, like Dropbox or Google Sheets.

layer8 4y ago

There is no need to insert a “we” group here. The user isn’t interested that it is “our” server. The user doesn’t think in terms of there being people behind the service. He/she is using the service, period. Introducing a group of other people only sets up an inappropriate social dynamics. It feels like the developers are self-inserting themselves into an interaction that is really only between the user and the service. Imagine you are using a ticket machine at the train station, the machine happens to malfunction, and it displays “sorry, our ticket machine is broken”. That is just weird, because the user is only interacting with the ticket machine, not with people operating the machine. It’s not like you’re at the restaurant and the waiter is saying “sorry, our credit card terminal is broken” (which would be an appropriate situation to say something like that). Rather, the ticket machine should display something along the lines of “System malfunction, please retry after pressing the red button. Apologies for the inconvenience.” And similar in the case of a server software.

hamdouni 4y ago
We can use "I" then. "404 I don't find your page" "501 I'm broken"
rozenmd 4y ago
Ah, I see
rhn_mk1 4y ago
That the user doesn't think in terms of there being people is not a good thing. Compare "sorry, our ticket machine is broken" to the impersonal "System malfunction, please retry". The impersonal version waves any responsibility of the malfuction away. Was it the user? Was it the machine? Was it the machine's owner? Nobody knows. With "our machine", there's a clear message sent about the accountability of the situation: there is someone owning the machine, and they failed to provide you service. Ideally, there would be contact information, so that the user has the ability to influence their surroundings. A machine is not a law of nature, and should not be treated as such. Heck, a law of nature which gets in the way - a fallen tree, a stray stone - can usually be fixed/moved/destroyed without fear about civil liability. A malfunctioning machine will ruin your day without you being able to do anything about it.
- layer8 4y ago
  That a machine or a service has an owner is self-evident, and I’m all for providing contact information or whatever for the entity behind it. This gives the user the choice of whether they want to enter into communication with them. But I don’t want them to speak to me through the machine or tool. As already mentioned, it’s like they are self-inserting themselves into the interaction the user has with the tool. It makes the use of the tool less intimate for the user, because suddenly there’s a third party mediating that interaction. It can feel like intruding into the user’s privacy and autonomy. In the Microsoft/Windows case, it certainly often feels like that. It’s bad enough for users when they don’t own the tool (as they would in case of a purchased local software) and only have temporary permission to use it, but they still like to think “this is my tool I’m using”, e.g. this is my Dropbox or my Google Sheet or my video game. A third party speaking through it however breaks that illusion, as it clearly brings the awareness of who’s really in control. The other thing is that the user knows that it’s just a stock message, in which case any emotional expression put into it can feel disingenuous.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    I think the problem I responded to is of the ticket machine. The ticket machine is the property of the second party, and an agent for it, so hiding that is disingenious at best, and misleading at worst. Your computer should be (although often isn't) doing things on your behalf, and only yours. There, the insertion would be jarring, and an encroachment. I'm not quite sure where on that spectrum stand services which deliberately insert themselves between you and your data, like Dropbox or Google Sheets.