4 ms·

> how do you explain to a non-technical user that their data has been deleted on the server, but that their client still has a cached copy that they might want

by mkl 2y ago

> how do you explain to a non-technical user that their data has been deleted on the server, but that their client still has a cached copy that they might want to try to salvage somehow? How about: "This message has been deleted from the mail server, but Outlook still has it in its temporary cache on this device. You can copy the message contents, or discard it from the cache, at which point it will be permanently deleted."

femto 2y ago
A typical person's head will explode at the mention of the words "cache" and "server". They will then go into a blind panic that their data is going to be "permanently deleted".
- rovr138 2y ago
  "locally", "the cloud"
  - shnock 2y ago
    Even that can still be too far. I lean towards “your computer” and “their computer”
  - recursive 2y ago
    Is it local if I stay in the same ZIP code?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Yeah you can't use words like that. Even many people who won't panic at the word "server" don't really understand what it is. "This message no longer exists in your Inbox. If you close it, you will not be able to open it again." What's more amazing is that this state actually happens often enough in Outlook that somebody wrote code to detect it, and to create a message box for the user to warn them about it.
  - chii 2y ago
    every warning or labelling of an issue is because it happened to somebody, and it needed to be prevented. It's true in the physical world - signs like 'beware of falling pottery' for example. The electronic world is a facsimile of the real world!
- eviks 2y ago
  Not an issue, replace server with the cloud and remove cache, temporary is fine
- IshKebab 2y ago
  So what? Most users will understand this or at least get the gist. My mum can ask me what it means and then I can tell her. That's a much better outcome than the original message.
- smaudet 2y ago
  Wrong. This is stupid, and you are stupid to entertain this idiotic notion. Let's take another example: "The mobility device can no longer operate. Your destination is no longer available." This tells me absolutely nothing. It possibly even implies that something very bad has happened to my destination! "The bus engine has broken down. Your route destination is no longer in service." Even to someone who doesn't know what a "bus", "engine", or a "route" are, this is an actionable and clear message. If I don't know what those things are, I can quickly figure out what a bus, engine and route are, or pass the message to someone who does understand. Removing information and replacing it with nonsense does not make an error message better. You don't need to be technical to be able to make sense of a message.
phreack 2y ago
I'd say a non-tech user has no idea what a server or cache is. I'd go with the word "backup" instead. Something like telling them that email is not backed up (online? where?) and if they delete it from their computer it won't be able to be recovered.
OmarShehata 2y ago
this is the only correct answer. "a non-technical user has no idea what a server or cache is" sure, but they can learn. The average person is much smarter than you think they are (when it comes to matters that actually affect their day to day life). If they don't get your explanation, it's almost always because (1) they don't care, they don't see why it matters to them (it often doesn't) (2) you're not explaining it well enough feynman has a nice philosophy on this that I think is true & useful: (that there's great variety in capability of the average person, we should explain things faithfully & without dumbing it down): https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@omarshehata/112378359360292715 https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@omarshehata/1123783593602927...
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  The problem is that people's brains just fucking shut down once it's computer related. "What was the error message?" "Idk I didn't read it." "Well here it is, it's asking for your password." "Ok what should I do?" This type of shit is more common than it should be. So many people just give up on computer related things that isn't the happy path.
  - CGamesPlay 2y ago
    Counterpoint, when a random dialog asks for a password, the answer is not always "give the password", so maybe that's part of the reason why people find it so confusing.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      When you can't open Outlook because you're getting an error, ya might need to fuckin sign in. This is sadly a common occurrence.
  - anatnom 2y ago
    If those users aren't reading the error dialogs anyways, why do the error dialogs need to pander to those users? I wonder if the "make it dumb enough for every user to understand" approach leads to user comprehension plateauing prematurely.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
stall84 2y ago
Yeah but that would be taking nearly all of the Microsoft out of it ...
qwertox 2y ago
How about a dialog with the buttons "Try again", "Save to file...", "Copy to clipboard" and "Discard contents"?
pquki4 2y ago
Funny of you to think your non-technical uncle is aware that there is such a thing as "mail server". All they know is that this email thing works, in the sense that he can send and receive emails.
ranger207 2y ago
Does anyone have any real studies about whether users will "have their heads explode" when presented with technical language? Apple and Microsoft did user studies for this sort of thing in the 80s and 90s, right? Has anyone done similar in the 00s, 10s, and 20s?
- mtVessel 2y ago
  Do we really need to? I'd lay odds that the effect remains the same: users dismiss the error/warning without reading it.
cafed00d 2y ago
There are only two acceptable solutions to this problem: 1. No error message. Just recover the cached message. 2. The message is deleted There’s a world we live in where ahem-ahem a certain design focused company would’ve done it this way. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the Mail app to make a decision on whether to recover the cached message or not. It’s those engineers & designers who built that damn cache in the first place. And the server too. Let _them_ deal with the consequences of messages existing in one but not the other. It’s not the user’s job to care.

by mkl 2y ago

femto 2y ago

A typical person's head will explode at the mention of the words "cache" and "server". They will then go into a blind panic that their data is going to be "permanently deleted".

rovr138 2y ago
"locally", "the cloud"
- shnock 2y ago
  Even that can still be too far. I lean towards “your computer” and “their computer”
- recursive 2y ago
  Is it local if I stay in the same ZIP code?
SoftTalker 2y ago
Yeah you can't use words like that. Even many people who won't panic at the word "server" don't really understand what it is. "This message no longer exists in your Inbox. If you close it, you will not be able to open it again." What's more amazing is that this state actually happens often enough in Outlook that somebody wrote code to detect it, and to create a message box for the user to warn them about it.
- chii 2y ago
  every warning or labelling of an issue is because it happened to somebody, and it needed to be prevented. It's true in the physical world - signs like 'beware of falling pottery' for example. The electronic world is a facsimile of the real world!
eviks 2y ago
Not an issue, replace server with the cloud and remove cache, temporary is fine
IshKebab 2y ago
So what? Most users will understand this or at least get the gist. My mum can ask me what it means and then I can tell her. That's a much better outcome than the original message.
smaudet 2y ago
Wrong. This is stupid, and you are stupid to entertain this idiotic notion. Let's take another example: "The mobility device can no longer operate. Your destination is no longer available." This tells me absolutely nothing. It possibly even implies that something very bad has happened to my destination! "The bus engine has broken down. Your route destination is no longer in service." Even to someone who doesn't know what a "bus", "engine", or a "route" are, this is an actionable and clear message. If I don't know what those things are, I can quickly figure out what a bus, engine and route are, or pass the message to someone who does understand. Removing information and replacing it with nonsense does not make an error message better. You don't need to be technical to be able to make sense of a message.

phreack 2y ago

I'd say a non-tech user has no idea what a server or cache is. I'd go with the word "backup" instead. Something like telling them that email is not backed up (online? where?) and if they delete it from their computer it won't be able to be recovered.

OmarShehata 2y ago

this is the only correct answer. "a non-technical user has no idea what a server or cache is" sure, but they can learn. The average person is much smarter than you think they are (when it comes to matters that actually affect their day to day life). If they don't get your explanation, it's almost always because (1) they don't care, they don't see why it matters to them (it often doesn't) (2) you're not explaining it well enough feynman has a nice philosophy on this that I think is true & useful: (that there's great variety in capability of the average person, we should explain things faithfully & without dumbing it down): https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@omarshehata/112378359360292715 https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@omarshehata/1123783593602927...

bongodongobob 2y ago
The problem is that people's brains just fucking shut down once it's computer related. "What was the error message?" "Idk I didn't read it." "Well here it is, it's asking for your password." "Ok what should I do?" This type of shit is more common than it should be. So many people just give up on computer related things that isn't the happy path.
- CGamesPlay 2y ago
  Counterpoint, when a random dialog asks for a password, the answer is not always "give the password", so maybe that's part of the reason why people find it so confusing.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    When you can't open Outlook because you're getting an error, ya might need to fuckin sign in. This is sadly a common occurrence.
- anatnom 2y ago
  If those users aren't reading the error dialogs anyways, why do the error dialogs need to pander to those users? I wonder if the "make it dumb enough for every user to understand" approach leads to user comprehension plateauing prematurely.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

stall84 2y ago

Yeah but that would be taking nearly all of the Microsoft out of it ...

qwertox 2y ago

How about a dialog with the buttons "Try again", "Save to file...", "Copy to clipboard" and "Discard contents"?

pquki4 2y ago

Funny of you to think your non-technical uncle is aware that there is such a thing as "mail server". All they know is that this email thing works, in the sense that he can send and receive emails.

ranger207 2y ago

Does anyone have any real studies about whether users will "have their heads explode" when presented with technical language? Apple and Microsoft did user studies for this sort of thing in the 80s and 90s, right? Has anyone done similar in the 00s, 10s, and 20s?

mtVessel 2y ago
Do we really need to? I'd lay odds that the effect remains the same: users dismiss the error/warning without reading it.

cafed00d 2y ago

There are only two acceptable solutions to this problem: 1. No error message. Just recover the cached message. 2. The message is deleted There’s a world we live in where ahem-ahem a certain design focused company would’ve done it this way. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the Mail app to make a decision on whether to recover the cached message or not. It’s those engineers & designers who built that damn cache in the first place. And the server too. Let _them_ deal with the consequences of messages existing in one but not the other. It’s not the user’s job to care.