4 ms·

I don't quite think the message-doesn't-exist example is caused by "dumbing down" too much. To me, the message "it no longer exists" is not the work of someone

I don't quite think the message-doesn't-exist example is caused by "dumbing down" too much. To me, the message "it no longer exists" is not the work of someone who, in trying to make layman understand, overdid it. Instead, it's the typical kind of mistake made by writers who forget about context. From the programmer's perspective, I speculate, the error _is_ indeed a case of something being non-existent. The code is written to fetch something from the server, the server says it's not there, and well, the application should tell the user about it. Within the very narrow context of fetching it from the server, "doesn't exist" is correct. However, in the context of the user who's sitting there looking at the message, "doesn't exist" is simply false. The message needs to be re-contextualized, such that it makes sense. "The message doesn't exist on the server, it exists on your computer at the moment, but just for a short while, so you better copy it". It doesn't matter whether the user understand what a "server" is. Simply knowing that the message doesn't exist [at some place], is enough to make the whole sentence sensible. Like if I go to a car mechanic, who just points to the whole car and say "it's gonna be replaced", it would be confusing. But if he says that "xxx is gonna be replaced", that's perfectly comprehensible, even if I don't know what xxx is.

LoganDark 2y ago
"This message cannot be downloaded because it no longer exists on the server. You can copy the message or delete it."
- smitty1e 2y ago
  A better phrasing might be "keep your local copy because your server-side copy is gone". Communication is hard. Welcome to people.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    That's not a better phrasing. That doesn't explain what happened at all. If you think that's a sensible recommendation, it's nice to add it after the error message. But it's not an error message.
    - smitty1e 2y ago
      That is a fair cop.
jack_pp 2y ago
instead of server it could say "on our end"
- yosefk 2y ago
  It could say "cloud" instead of server and "your device" instead of cache and laypeople would get it, I think. It's unfortunate that servers are called cloud but at least there's a word that's commonly understood. Not sure if "on our end" would work, perhaps it would, too. Contrary to GP I have no doubt that the original message was phrased the way it was to avoid explaining how things work, on the theory that it's bad form to explain this, because users understanding it is neither possible nor desirable. If a programmer was writing naturally, for their colleague or future self to read the message, the server and the cache would certainly make an appearance. They weren't omitted because the context was obvious but because exposing the context was considered undesirable; I think so because a more internal rather than end-user error message never looks like this.

LoganDark 2y ago

"This message cannot be downloaded because it no longer exists on the server. You can copy the message or delete it."

smitty1e 2y ago
A better phrasing might be "keep your local copy because your server-side copy is gone". Communication is hard. Welcome to people.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  That's not a better phrasing. That doesn't explain what happened at all. If you think that's a sensible recommendation, it's nice to add it after the error message. But it's not an error message.
  - smitty1e 2y ago
    That is a fair cop.

jack_pp 2y ago

instead of server it could say "on our end"

yosefk 2y ago
It could say "cloud" instead of server and "your device" instead of cache and laypeople would get it, I think. It's unfortunate that servers are called cloud but at least there's a word that's commonly understood. Not sure if "on our end" would work, perhaps it would, too. Contrary to GP I have no doubt that the original message was phrased the way it was to avoid explaining how things work, on the theory that it's bad form to explain this, because users understanding it is neither possible nor desirable. If a programmer was writing naturally, for their colleague or future self to read the message, the server and the cache would certainly make an appearance. They weren't omitted because the context was obvious but because exposing the context was considered undesirable; I think so because a more internal rather than end-user error message never looks like this.