69

(I've searched this StackExchange site for posts relating to the use of first-person pronouns, but all I found concerned how to address the user and not the software, e.g. Form instructions/guidance - first person vs third person? and Which grammatical person should I use when writing to the user?).

Should my software (which targets unsophisticated users) refer to itself in the first-person, especially in error messages? (See also Should error messages apologize? )

I noticed that Apple's macOS (and many Apple ecosystem products) sometimes refers to itself in the first-person which personifies the user's computer, whereas the Windows' platform prefers more neutral and emotion-free language (and feel free to insert a joke about the usability of many user-hostile Linux bash command-line error messages).

For example, here are some examples of message text in my application:

  • After searching the user's computer network for available servers:

    • Neutral: "Discovered {0} servers. The first server has been selected."
    • Personal: "I discovered {0} servers in your network and I have pre-selected the first server I found for you."

  • If the search failed:

    • Neutral: "Error: Discovery of servers failed. Reason: {0}."
    • Personal: "I'm sorry but the network search failed due to an error that I cannot resolve myself. Your operating-system tells me the reason was {0}".

I'm concerned that using personal terms and referring to the software in the first-person comes across as condescending and unnecessarily verbose (in fact, I cringe when I read the messages back to myself) - but at the same time this may actually be welcomed by my users.

Has any peer-reviewed research been done to investigate the effects of personal language in software error messages, especially when the software refers to itself in the first-person?

Dai
  • 907
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 42
    "I'm sorry" may bring up associations with the famous line from 2001: A Space Odyssey's "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that". That's a point to consider especially if your software may be used for something controversial. – Federico Poloni Nov 23 '18 at 10:59
  • 56
    Speaking as a user, I absolutely hate status/error messages that use first-person language (e.g. Windows 10 "we couldn't do ..." or "we have done ... for you"). I find it incredibly patronising/condescending, as though I am too stupid to be able to understand the machine unless it speaks like a person. – micheal65536 Nov 23 '18 at 12:10
  • 52
    Speaking as a developer and someone responsible for maintaining computer systems and working with "regular" users, I find it incredibly frustrating because there is no magical "we" inside your computer that makes everything happen and these kinds of interface trends only make it even harder for users to understand anything technical. In other words, by constantly "talking down" to users by using this kind of language, a generation of users is created that cannot understand anything else. – micheal65536 Nov 23 '18 at 12:11
  • I would be curious to know if this is a new thing for Apple or if it has always been like this. Lately, there's a push for personal device to implement a lot of AI and to personify them. – the_lotus Nov 23 '18 at 16:58
  • 22
    Some of these messages make me cringe. I want to know what's wrong, I don't want to know how the software feels about it. I do like clear language and grammatical sentences, and it's sometimes useful to know which part of the system the message came from. "I" doesn't help with that. Apologies don't help either. – Michael Kay Nov 23 '18 at 23:19
  • I think that if using an audio UI, first person should be used for context if otherwise missing (otherwise it could sound like an instruction to the user instead of feedback to the user), but with visual UI, first person is not needed. – Randall Nov 25 '18 at 13:54
  • I recall in grade 5ish (2000) one of the rainbow iMacs speaking an error message in a horrible nasal voice that started with "It is not my fault...". – Élie Nov 26 '18 at 01:00
  • 9
    Installing Windows 10 is a nightmare for anyone who isn't ignorant with computers. Why? Because it pretends to be friendly and tells you nothing you actually want to know. "I'm sorry this is taking so long" doesn't help. Give me a progress bar and a %. – insidesin Nov 26 '18 at 04:52
  • Messages using first-person don't necessarily need to be also verbose: "I discovered {0} servers and pre-selected the first one." and "I cannot find any server because {0}". In general a slightly more personal message is easier to read and more friendly but if too much verbose then it's simply annoying. The major problem is consistency: if you can't have a consistent style then the impersonal one is less annoying. – Adriano Repetti Nov 26 '18 at 14:39
  • 2
    I suggest you ask about this in non-technical circles as well (Consider the great comic-sans controversy where many out of the field actually prefer it). People in a given field have very strong feelings that may not match the general public. Not to defend them but Microsoft's approach most likely came from asking thousands of actual non-technical users about dozens of different scenarios. Yeah the guy who sees it 20 times a day might start to chafe, and if that's your primary customer then this is the place to ask! otherwise... – Bill K Nov 26 '18 at 18:48
  • 1
    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. – ysth Nov 26 '18 at 21:13
  • @insidesin Progress bars and %'s don't help either, and people keep complaining that they're pointless. That's why they've been phased out over the decades. – Luaan Nov 27 '18 at 08:12
  • @MichealJohnson The "we" refers to the product team. "It's our fault this isn't more awesome". Nobody is implying a dwarf running anything behind the scenes (unlike the early Apple systems that really personified the computer). But in the end, your preferences are just that - yours. Users don't want to understand anything technical; and those who do can still get to the technical information easily enough. – Luaan Nov 27 '18 at 08:15
  • 2
    People are stupid, don't listen to them. Progress bars are extremely useful at knowing what is happening. There's no way they're ever going to be phased out. "We are doing _____" doesn't replace "[ Converting ___ / / / / ----].

    Progress bars tell you: what is happening, how much has happened and how much you have left to happen. "My computer is stuck at [I am busy, hang on] please help!" is a burden, not a benefit.

     – insidesin Nov 27 '18 at 08:17
  • Great question, never thought of the impact of this. I always thought this is something advanced users dislike and something that 'noobs' like. Sadly I misclicked and downvoted by accident instead of upvoting this. – Kevin M. Nov 27 '18 at 09:35
  • Just curious: where have you seen this in macOS or iOS? I've never seen anything like this, and would find it hard to believe. Apple isn't usually that tacky. Maybe 25 years ago, but not recently. – user91988 Nov 27 '18 at 16:31
  • @Luaan So the "we" that "sets things up for me" when I log in to my new Windows 10 computer is the developer who wrote the code? Pretty sure the user interprets that "we" as the magic Microsoft genie, and that's the same "we" that tries to fix it when something breaks and apologises when it can't. For the record, I actually know a decent (not dumb) user who first experienced computers about 15 or 20 years ago and complains about the tone of these "personal" messages. – micheal65536 Nov 28 '18 at 11:32
  • Information first. Your provided examples make the messages longer and thus harder to parse in a quick manner – BlueWizard Dec 11 '18 at 12:58

11 Answers11

96

No.

Trying to give applications personality is one of those things that's just not well thought out. It definitely seems like it's one of those solutions that developers came up with and never user tested.

In a classic UI UX failure, developers came up with the talking paper clip solution in response to this same issue: https://archive.org/details/g4tv.com-video4080

Computers and applications are tools. There can be personality IN applications but the application itself is not a being.

Also, think of the percentage of applications that are social. All social applications ARE the user. "It's MY instagram, my account, that's me." So when my instagram says "I", who is it referring to?

moot
  • 5,351
  • 1
  • 14
  • 17
  • 5
    Reminds me of Dislike of human like robots. – Piro Nov 23 '18 at 12:02
  • 8
    I haven't been able to find a good reference for this, but my prof said that the pattern of describing the application in the first person makes users uncomfortable, as they may begin to think of the application as a 'being' and maybe even a hostile or uncooperative one!

    So "The copy operation has failed because..." is preferable to "ApplicationName failed to copy because..." or "I failed to copy because...", as the first one sets up the actual reason for the failure as the source of your problems, and the others risk indicating that the application itself is the cause of all your woes!

     – Meg Nov 23 '18 at 13:29
  • 3
    Every time my employer's stupid timecard system tells me to "please wait while we get things ready for you" I hate it a little more. – 1006a Nov 26 '18 at 06:13
  • I tried a typical Unix command, stat nonexistingfile, and the English errror message is stat: cannot stat 'nonexistingfile': No such file or directory where cannot is clearly first person (sg or pl). However, the German error message is stat: der Aufruf von stat für 'nonexistingfile' ist nicht möglich: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden, which is third person sg (Der Aufruf, engl. the call is the subject here, the German sentence says The call to stat for 'nonexistingfile' is not possible). IMHO none of these messages is annoying. – rexkogitans Nov 26 '18 at 07:48
  • 10
    @rexkogitans the use of "cannot" is not clearly first person, it could be second person "[You] cannot stat" or third person "[The program] cannot stat". – Thymine Nov 26 '18 at 08:53
  • @Thymine You're right. I never read it like this. Even in German, sometimes the word "konnte" is used, which can be 1st or 3rd sg, but Past Tense ("Konnte Datei nicht finden" - "Could not find file"). Maybe I was too Microsoft-drowned although my last intensive touch with Windows is a decade ago. – rexkogitans Nov 26 '18 at 09:20
  • 3
    A part of me wants to -1 because you mentioned clippy without mentioning bob. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob I think microsoft bob is a much better example of what happens when a UI assumes the user has the mental age of 3. Apple however does very well assuming the mental age of 10. – UKMonkey Nov 26 '18 at 13:23
  • I feel like that No should be bigger. Maybe # *No*? –  Nov 26 '18 at 22:38
  • 1
    @Meg Of course, this is true with humans as well. It's just that interpersonal skills are in a bit of a decline so people don't notice anymore. At the same time, corporation communication adopted the passive approach too, so for many people, it's considered a cop-out and infuriating ("What do you mean 'It stopped processing orders'? Who broke it?!"). You can't win. – Luaan Nov 27 '18 at 08:20
  • @moot Why do chatbots not adhere to this than? For instance Tele2 Netherlands uses an AI chatbot that, last time I checked refers itself to 'I'. At my current job I use the term 'we' when our application fails for x reason. We use this because 'we' (the team) are experts helping the user find the best/cheapest data plan (or any other insurance etc.). – Kevin M. Nov 27 '18 at 08:57
  • Some extra info regarding my comment: We created some interactive tools that helps the user find the best match regarding their preferences. – Kevin M. Nov 27 '18 at 09:03
  • Please, anyone who knows SharePoint 2013 program managers at Microsoft: send them a link to this thread. – Evariste Nov 27 '18 at 12:42
  • Off topic trivia: Microsofts talking paper clip actually had a whole range of personas: I used to use the cat. The paper clip was just the default one. – PhillipW Nov 29 '18 at 17:38
15

You should use simple and direct language to communicate with the users. When writing error messages be polite and provide meaningful actionable messages. Keep the apologies for cases when the mistake is on your part for which you want to apologise. Use a consistent first person language, it is okey to use 'we' when addressing the system.

I assume when you say 'unsophisticated' it is around ability of the users to comprehend complex sentences. Using simple and short messages would help in easy comprehension. You can also consider using visuals and icons to supplement the messages.

Personal: "I'm sorry but the network search failed due to an error that I cannot resolve myself. Your operating-system tells me the reason was {0}".

In your example too much is happening which just add complexity. It sounds like search is blaming or passing the blame on the OS. And there is no actionable block to guide users on what to do about it.

Suggestion: The network search failed due to {--- (in simple language)---}. {-- what can users do like Check your internet connection and try again--}.

Hope you find it helpful. Cheers!!!

Harish
  • 196
  • 4
  • 3
    I appreciate the points you raise, but you don't really address the pros/cons of singular first-person pronouns ("I did this..."), plural first-person ("We did this...") or impersonal ("This was done...") in software messages. – Dai Nov 23 '18 at 10:59
  • 8
    " Check your internet connection and try again" - but try to avoid reinventing the infamous Windows boot-up error message: "Error: keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue." – alephzero Nov 23 '18 at 19:28
  • Or directing users to the "any" key... as in hit any key to continue, unless you label one key any... – Solar Mike Nov 25 '18 at 10:18
  • 2
    Using "simple and direct language" to communicate information mostly requires using the active voice, and that requires a subject for the sentence. If the subject is not "I", what is it? (I do not think there is a good solution to this dilema) – Raedwald Nov 26 '18 at 15:20
  • @Raedwald 'Using "simple and direct language" to communicate information mostly requires using the active voice' How did you reach that conclusion? – nasch Nov 26 '18 at 21:12
  • @alephzero Not Windows, BIOS. And the point is that you're supposed to plug the keyboard in and then press F1, which has been lost since PS/2 and USB keyboards that no longer work that way. Oh well. – Luaan Nov 27 '18 at 08:22
7

Generally speaking,

Yes!

Caveat A: If the folks responsible for messages lack humour and/or empathy -- NO!

Caveat B: If writing skills and communication ability aren't strong, don't even try it.

Caveat C: Huge and/or there's millions of users - then nope, give it a miss.

You seem to not have these problems. And are self critical. Those are good qualities for creating content, which is what this is, so Yes!

Just do it!

//some notes and thoughts on your direct worries

Your concerns about condescension are valid in this case:

Personal: "I'm sorry but the network search failed due to an error that I cannot resolve myself. Your operating-system tells me the reason was {0}".

The primary problem is the 'but'. This is sort of unnecessary blame shifting. The sentence might work better like this:

"I'm sorry. The network search failed. An error I cannot resolve occurred. Your device's operating system tells me the reason was {0}"

This makes for a much more sincere, heartfelt apology, because it's the first thing said, in isolation. A simple, flat, solo "I'm sorry" is one of the most powerful sets of words. Right up there with "I love you" and "I hate you".

The reformatting of the sentence also moves the blaming of the user's operating system to their device's operating system, which is both more accurate and more accepting of the much deeper truth, that the problems of technology are rarely the direct responsibility of the user.

"I discovered {0} servers in your network and I have pre-selected the first server I found for you."

Can be:

For you, I have selected the first of {n} servers found.

Can also be:

I have selected the first of {n} servers found.

Can also be:

Selected first of {n} servers found.

and if you really want to personalise the experience, you can show each of these 2 times, starting from the top, as needed, so you're getting less verbose with your messages each time, for that particular user. I know. So much consideration of the experience is unusual, but imagine how welcome they'll feel.

On the 10th time they use the app/service, you could congratulate them:

It's our 10th anniversary of your using our server connectivity. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thank you!

Writing Thoughts:

Generally speaking, on writing as content, entertainment, marketing and notification, warnings and error messaging in the first person: Be Self Aware, and have fun with it!

If you have more time, write less.

I almost never spend the time, so apologies for the verbose answer....

Write with humour and style you know and enjoy, trust your judgement and self criticality, and don't worry about verbosity. Verbosity should be the very last of concerns for error messages.

Users care about what went wrong because it went wrong for them, and it was something they're trying to do. They have 'skin-in-the-game', so will give time to error messages. This fact is all too often ignored, forgotten or otherwise overlooked in favour of cryptic, needlessly concise garbage.

Confused
  • 2,258
  • 11
  • 18
  • 2
    I don't mean to blame-shift to the OS - the actual blame lies with the user and their network status (e.g. network cable unplugged, Wi-Fi disabled, etc) - the OS is just the messenger in that case. I probably don't want to mention the OS at all but it does need to let the user know that it isn't a problem with the software I wrote. – Dai Nov 23 '18 at 00:18
  • In that case, the message needs to be absolutely about the failure of a network environment, and that they need to do something to rectify it. – Confused Nov 23 '18 at 00:20
  • 4
    A change of mindset that might result in ideal communication between software and user is this: instead of thinking of them as error messages, consider them assistive, helpful user guides and suggestions. In each case, First part = problem specifics, second part = reasons, third = possible solutions. – Confused Nov 23 '18 at 00:23
  • 2
    My program can't be absolutely certain about that, though, for example, a failure due to a TCP timeout could be because the user's home router is broken - or because the remote server is misbehaving. – Dai Nov 23 '18 at 00:23
  • Nothing can be absolutely certain. The problem of generalisation is that it's not always right. Generalisation's presumptions lead to benefits, however, that far outweigh problems of it sometimes being wrong, generally speaking ;) – Confused Nov 23 '18 at 00:24
  • @Dai Or could be because of an obscure bug in the code itself... which is one of my reasons for not personifying such messages: it could be a case of "I have failed to ask properly for your 'phone to ...". – TripeHound Nov 23 '18 at 15:41
  • 2
    A small correction. Users don't care what went wrong - that's a tech-centric approach which is where too much software falls down. What they want is to know how to fix it. So instead of saying "printer comm errors", the software should say "please check your printer is connected". There's a general UX principle that you don't report any error which the user can't fix. – Graham Nov 25 '18 at 01:39
  • @Graham I agree with your overarching point, and the problem(s) of tech-centric communication consideration coming from those creating tech products. Hence the context. Users care about what went wrong to the extent that users want to do something about it, if and when and where they can, because they're trying to do something. Or, in other words, because they are trying to do something that's been prevented by something going wrong. We can't change the mindset of tech-centric creators, they are what they are. But we can help them see how to actually help their users, not play blame diversion. – Confused Nov 25 '18 at 01:59
  • In the few cases where a programmer/creator is able to communicate what his program is failing at in its endeavours, the use of first person and humour provides a levity and marketability that 99% of others in the space won't be able to replicate. So if it's something a digital creator is considering, and they have the capacity and capability to deliver it with wit, humour and appropriateness... I say DO IT!!! – Confused Nov 25 '18 at 02:01
  • "I'm sorry" is right up there with "I love you" and "I hate you". Fine. Does that mean that we might get error messages that say things like "I love you, but the network search failed because ... " ? – Dawood ibn Kareem Nov 25 '18 at 18:32
  • @DawoodibnKareem are you demonstrating that sarcasm and dry wit won't work in error messages? – Confused Nov 25 '18 at 19:57
  • @JonW Thanks, as the cpm did exactly that, why do you think it does not? – Solar Mike Nov 26 '18 at 10:01
  • @DawoodibnKareem: For systems that are actively maintained by humans, it may often be entirely reasonable for those humans to be apologetic. Typically, however, such apologies should be delivered in the third person: "The AcmeCo staff apologies for this outage, and expects service to be restored shortly" though of course a reader would have no idea whether anyone at AcmeCo is actually aware of the problem yet. – supercat Nov 26 '18 at 16:13
  • 2
    "They have 'skin-in-the-game', so will give time to error messages. " Citation needed. Way too many of our support requests consist of nothing but "Can't use the app" or the equivalent. No description of what the user was trying to do, let alone the error message (or whether there was one), no screen shot, clearly no time spent on the problem. – nasch Nov 26 '18 at 21:16
  • If you seriously need a citation to understand vested interests of users, I'm going to need evidence of your critical capacities. @nasch – Confused Nov 26 '18 at 21:33
  • @Confused I agree with nasch. Personally for my team our users are involuntary, using our software is part of their job, and their line manager will be around asking them why they aren't doing their job if they have problems...but they definitely don't all spend a lot of time carefully reading the error messages (also based on tickets that they send in, I am co-located with our tier 2 support). – user3067860 Nov 26 '18 at 21:58
  • @nasch your inherent attitude towards the users, which comes through loud and clear in the way you describe them, probably comes through in your software and its user experience, too. If you give off that vibe, you can expect most users to feel a sense of dismay at the manner in which your app performs. If there's significant discrepeancies between what your app claims to do and how often and uselessly it fails at doing it, you can expect lots of this sort of attitude coming back at you from users. You get what you put out into the world. I get scorn from SO users. But I'm fine with that ;) – Confused Nov 26 '18 at 21:59
  • @user3067860 this scenario involves an app written and created (seemingly) by the person asking the questions about his error messages, and showing some degree of personal concern for his users. It is not generally applicable to involuntary software facilities provided through tender processes and designed-by-committee. I don't even begin to see why you (or nasch) are attempting to draw a parallel between these two worlds or find a "solution" that's universal to both. They're not similar other than that they're both software. If you're in a similar spot, with OP's question, my answer is above. – Confused Nov 26 '18 at 22:01
  • @Confused You're implying that I don't care, but I definitely have "skin-in-the-game" of my users understanding--because the second that they don't, they call in and I have to hear about it. (Or if it gets bad enough, they call their supervisor who then calls my manager.) Not saying we don't have design-by-committee issues, but lack of personal concern is not one of them. We also have the benefit of getting direct feedback (user support calls) from our users who typically spend several hours per workday using our software, but who are not necessarily technically inclined outside of work. – user3067860 Nov 26 '18 at 22:12
  • @Confused Wow, wild speculation much? You go from one description of support requests we get to conclusions about how often the software "uselessly fails"? We try to make the software as friendly and easy to use as possible and we're actually delighted when a user engages with us in a productive fashion. Unfortunately that isn't always the way it goes. "I get scorn from SO users." I'm not surprised. I hope you don't apply the reasoning process you have demonstrated in that comment to software development. – nasch Nov 27 '18 at 02:40
  • @nasch, you determine "when a user engages... in a productive fashion". Proving my point. – Confused Nov 27 '18 at 04:08
  • @Confused lol, ok. Still hoping you use a different kind of reasoning in the rest of your life compared to what you have exhibited in these comments. – nasch Nov 27 '18 at 18:07
  • Horses for courses ;) @nasch – Confused Nov 27 '18 at 19:09
4

According to Joel on Software (and also my own personal experience), you should stick with whichever error message is shorter. Going by that, in your two examples the neutral language is a clear winner. In particular, the second example is extremely long and tedious with personal language.

Joel has a good example with error messages in his article "Designing for People Who Have Better Things To Do With Their Lives" (although, haha, you'll have to scroll down a couple of pages to get to it--the article is a little lengthy, but worth reading in it's entirety if you're interested in UI design).

user3067860
  • 319
  • 1
  • 7
3

Never ever give SW/HW a personality

You never know how much paranoid (security savvy) user will be using your software, thus implication of some overwatch (...I have searched...) is not desirable.

Even worse, sentences like (...we have preselected...) might be perceived as someone decided insted of me, is it a trap?

sachy
  • 39
  • 1
3

One thing that definitely deserves a mention for this answer is the writing style guide that should form part of your company/product brand guidelines or standard.

So if you consider the company brand first and then extend it using the product brand guideline, it should give you an idea of whether it is suitable and consistent to do this.

For example, if your brand is all about being 'human' and friendly to the customer, then it probably makes sense to do this because you want interactions to have a personal feel to it. However, the particular product might be for users that want a very professional and no-nonsense experience, so you wouldn't introduce slang or humour into the writing style (or at least do so very carefully).

Michael Lai
  • 27,124
  • 17
  • 89
  • 186
2

There is some peer-reviewed research on this:

Personifying Programming Tool Feedback Improves Novice Programmers' Learning by Michael J. Lee and Amy J. Ko (2011)

They find a usability improvement from first person pronouns where the computer blames itself:

Many novice programmers view programming tools as all-knowing, infallible authorities about what is right and wrong about code. This misconception is particularly detrimental to beginners, who may view the cold, terse, and often judgmental errors from compilers as a sign of personal failure. It is possible, however, that attributing this failure to the computer, rather than the learner, may improve learners' motivation to program. [...]

[We found that] those in the experimental condition (with a personable Gidget) completed significantly more levels in a similar amount of time.

Wilfred Hughes
  • 123
  • 5
0

This question has already been answered and I am only giving my opinion. personally programs speaking about themselves in first person can cause great confusion

especially in error messages

and during a error the last thing you want to be doing is adding confusion to the blender.

The sketchbook folder no longer exists. Arduino will switch to the default sketchbook location, and create a new sketchbook folder if necessary. Arduino will then stop talking about himself in the third person.

I have found Arduino tends to intermittedly speak about its self when errors that can be rectified by the system occur (eg a folder has been deleted) but directly informs the user it is doing so perhaps you could model around this

and one last thing:

•Personal: "I'm sorry but the network search failed due to an error that I cannot resolve myself. Your operating-system tells me the reason was {0}".

is it just me or does this make it sound like the operating system is at fault, probably best to change this!

like I said this is merely my opinion but I hope it helps somebody. good luck with your program --Leo Cornelius

Leo Cornelius
  • 19
  • 3
  • sorry just read through pervious answers and saw that they also mentioned the os at blame issue. sorry to repeat had not seen it! – Leo Cornelius Nov 25 '18 at 23:06
0

I think that whilst a good idea in theory, adding personality/personal language often means developers will use less technical language.

I think windows 10 is a good example where personality has been chosen over practicality. When it crashes and goes to blue screen of death instead of telling you where the memory fell out of place and giving you rich detailed data, it instead gives you a QR code to (in my experience) the default Microsoft help page with no relevant information and that extremely patronising unhappy smiley face

yay that emoticon sure made me happier about losing 4 hours of work

Carson Graham
  • 103
  • 2
Lewis Creelman
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
    You're not wrong, but if you lost four hours of work because of a system crash (assuming the system just went down and the disk drive is fine) you were definitely doing something incorrectly. Patronizing face: ;-) – nasch Nov 26 '18 at 21:18
  • 1
    It's not supposed to make you happy, it's supposed to reflect your emotion. Basic personal skills. The rich detailed data is easily available if you're technically knowledgeable, and hidden if you're not - what's the problem with that? Is there any good reason beyond "I have to read the documentation again" (ideally while complaining that "users don't read documentation")? :P – Luaan Nov 27 '18 at 08:27
0

In general a program should communicate with its user.

What I mean is that the useful information is displayed in an intuitive, informative, and easily used manner.

If something is intuitive, I can just look at it and understand the meaning immediately. Mac OS 7-9 had this down. A picture of the mac with a dead face and a bomb. I don't need words, the computer is in a bad way and something went very wrong. It can't tell me more right now, but its probably not coming back right now.

If something is Informative it presents the information needed to make a decision (if i'm practiced), or find out more (if i'm uncertain). Windows has a good example with unresponsive programs. It will ask a question, "this program ... appears to be unresponsive, you can wait till [and hope it] responds, or force exit now.

Easily used is the elusive part. Unlike most of our tools, computers can calculate right back at us. Nothing shows that more than when a computer suddenly does the unexpected (encounters an extra-ordinary situation) when its business as usual for the user. This alone is evidence of a difference in beliefs, this implies a personality, even if only to the user. So the software should communicate consistently with that personality.

The personality could be quite personable, it might be very fact orientated, it could have or lack any trait you desire. People will respond positively or negatively to it based on their own preferences for who they would work with.

  • Many developer orientated systems have a quirky personality because many developers like to work with quirky personalities.
  • Many business orientated systems have a very fact orientated personality because they are distributed en-mass and have to hit the lowest possible denominator.

How you select the systems personality depends on your audience.

Personally I like software that is considerate. It doesn't have to use I, We, or some other pronoun. It just needs to communicate with me and consider my needs.

Kain0_0
  • 111
  • 1
0

A software doesn't have personality, so it shouldn't speak to a user first-person.

However, people who have developed the software do have their personalities. And they can speak to a user through their software first-person (probably plural) if they want to. They may want to do that to show a user that the software was developed by human beings, with their human thoughts and emotions and that everything software does was once invented by some particular human.

We found these new files, let's add them to the project.

Now sure if it's a common case for error messages but it's certaintly possible:

Next time please unmount your device before ejecting it.

(this is not first-person, but personal)

Not a problem if a software speaks on behalf of developer who is absent, sleeping or already dead long ago. This way written letters and books speak first-person all the time.

It must be a voice of developers or invisible human support, not the computer itself! Computer should not lie to a user, see first sentence.

Sergey Kirienko
  • 668
  • 3
  • 7