Oops I ruined your life

Every one of the links he provides about how to write good user-facing error messaging mentions that the error text should spell out what went wrong and what the user can do to fix it.

The problem with this advice is that in 2012, everything is on the web and problems either arise from network issues, database problems or bugs that can be patched into the live product in many cases. Therefore, the vast majority of users don't care what went wrong, largely because in most cases there's only one thing they can ever do to fix it: try again later. The example he uses to kick off his post - a GMail send failure - is a canonical example. Try again later.

As for error messages being too casual, with the showing of sad faces and big, bright usage of words like "Oops!" - it's because you have about a fiftieth of a second to communicate to the user that something went wrong and they're seeing something that's not what they're supposed to be seeing. Literally, two words is too much; user study after user study has revealed that people simply don't read error messages and fruitlessly click "OK", either thinking there was no problem, or wondering if they did something wrong.

Realistically you can't do anything about most modern error messages.

If you got a backtrace from a gmail error, what can you do? ssh into a google server and fix the bug? Or how about patch your version of office with a binary you made?

You might as well attempt to put a smile on someones face after you failed to send that important document (that they should have backed up).

I kind of like these error message. They remind me there's a human being on the other side. Shit happens, people puffing out their chests to sound more official doesn't help anyone.

Here's the reason it needs to be friendly and cute: Non-tech savvy people. When my mom or dad see any error message (notably windows os ones that don't have any oops!), they completely freak out and call me about it.

Do you want all of your non-tech savvy friends calling you about a non-cute error message fearing the apocalypse happened to their computer?

I think the idea is to communicate to the user that there were real live humans writing the software and they made a mistake rather than hal.dll or some other inhuman code/machine thing.

This way, rather than personifying the buggy product and getting angry at it, the blame is shifted to a more forgivable entity. "Everybody makes mistakes", etc.

I suspect that's the line of reasoning anyways since a lot of these products, like gmail and iCloud are pretty much all business, only giving the most utilitarian feedback until they crash, at which point the cute blasters get set to kill.

Is there a valid design reason for a site to render zero content if the browser has JavaScript disabled?

Ok, so the top bar shows up, but not the actual post. And if I select View->Page Style->No Style, I can find the text, as well.

Sad.

I have this debate quite a bit with my friends with regards to how apps crash in Android vs. iOS. In iOS when an app crashes it takes you back to the home screen. In Android I believe the highest exception is shown to the user.

I like the way Android does it because when I have a recurring problem with an app I can eventually find the solution to the app crashing through a Google search. I think for most people the iOS way is probably better. That puts the onus on the app provider to do research and read the reviews to try to fix the problem.

Windows Phone is a mix of the two in my experiences. Sometimes it shows a stack trace and sometimes it just kicks you back to the Start screen. I believe Microsoft made certain rules like if an action takes longer than 10 seconds to perform than it will automatically boot you back to the Start screen.

Personally, I think the Windows 8 BSOD shown is a great improvement.

The OP feels like a bit of a curmudgeon.

Cutesy is nonthreatening and sometimes amusing.

Ironically, in the Daily Show video the author embeds down the bottom, I get an "Unavailable Video" error message.

I have difficulty believing Microsoft would have introduced a cutesy BSOD without at least focus grouping it. Anyone know for sure?

I interpreted the article as being written tongue-in-cheek, and simply aimed at poking fun at some of the ways tech companies deliver these messages. Most of the time getting these messages isn't tragic, and they simply serve to make the situation more lighthearted.

The best error messages are simple, explain the problem, and how to fix it.

It's frustrating to see 'Windows Update failed: Error code 0xXYZABC123' - that's no help to me.

Or see an error about 'A problem occurred trying to do this and that' with no recourse.

A better approach is "There was a problem saving your file. There may not be enough disk space free. Try deleting files you don't need anymore to make more space," (etc) that gives the user a way to try and fix it without being so frustrated.

I'm guilty of some useless error messages, but I try and make sure any error messages I write from now on try to be helpful to get the user back on track to what they wanted to be doing.

I think the author got lost on the tracks. Every article he points to is against his case - these are unrecoverable errors, there isn't nothing the message could say to help, so it might as well just try to be nice.

As a power user, I like detailed error messages because I can search for solutions online, if they exist but I can definitely appreciate the need for a simplified version for the regular user.

A good middle ground is a generalized message that has an advanced button with more details underneath. I do agree that it could be dialed down from 11 on the cute scale. Showing a graphic of a monkey with some smartass remark is not pleasant when I just lost data.

I don't know why Microsoft chose a huge :( over a more graphical representation. With the rise of click-and-go "real" emoticons in phones, Gmail, blogs etc., will the user demographic friendly error messages are aimed at even understand what it is meant to be?

That was a lot of whining, followed by a vague, "we should do something sort of in the middle!" Ugh.

Anyway, "Guru Meditation Error" - Commodore, 1985. Cute has been around forever. Software has grown insanely more complex now than ten or twenty years ago. Providing a meaningful error in a concise manner is effectively impossible. Providing an overload of information does not help the end user deal with their frustration. The people at these companies are smart, I'm sure they've found user frustration and support costs are lower with a simple, cute error message.

I disagree with this post entirely, and think these error messages are great. They show remorse.

Which email would you rather get after working a week on a presentation to a client with your partner:

a)

just got a call that the client signed with another firm.

b)

just got a call that the client signed with another firm :(

one of these shows the disappointment and the fact that you poured a week into this work and were shot in the back (assume the client didn't even mention another firm in the picture), one of these doesn't.

show remorse in your error messages, like a human.