Yours vs. Mine
dcurt.is
dcurt.is
I think marketeers leveraging "my" tend to envision that we will come to think of their product as like some treasured childhood teddy bear that we hug firmly to our bosoms each night. In life though, when we talk about owning things - my this, my that - it's often in order to identity ourselves with them. For most services, that's a lot to assume. Treading the HN path of avoiding possessive determiners at all may be the wiser path.
Having said that, there are situations where those traits may be appropriate. If some kind of intimate or emotional connection is the point of the app, it makes a certain sort of sense.
I also realize my bias against that sort of presumed intimacy may be greater than the average person's.
I'm not sure if it is as pronounced anywhere else, but my area has a lot of shops that use the prefix in their name.
My Chemist
My Hairdresser
My Bookstore
My House
All places I walk past regularly, and they're all equally as awkward. Same goes for interfaces trying to emulate the same thing.
I agree. This is something that has been bothering me every since Windows XP. I think less about what marketers want and how desperate it may or may not be, and I spend more time feeling offended that someone is presuming to intrude into my personal space in my program on my machine and tell me how I plan to use it. It's like they're misrepresenting me to myself, and it never fails to provoke much scoffing and eyerolling from me. I consider it a major signal of BS in software.
On the other hand, software which uses "your" or no pronouns at all can do almost exactly the same stuff - like creating a default organization of data - and I don't mind. I see it as a respectful suggestion which has my best interest in mind, and I'm more likely to actually incorporate their idea into the way I do things because I'm not immediately on the defensive.
Edit:
This reminds me of when I was staying at one of those tropical beach resorts and one of the souvenir sellers was announcing "shopping time, everybody!" to everyone that passed by. I didn't like that he obviously wanted me to participate in a dishonest exchange, but he was presumptuously "reminding" me that giving giving him money is a natural part of my day, the same way that I have an "eating time" and a "sleeping time".
NEITHER.
Just say "Purchases" or "Bookmarks." Not yours, not mine, not his, not hers. Just "it."
Now, get back to writing code!
Remember the joke that Bill Gates reckons he has such complete control over every PC with Windows installed that he goes around naming each one "My Computer" so we won't forget it's his?
Honestly, I still feel it's an overwrought discussion about something that ultimately doesn't effect the user enough to change their general perception of the product.
It may have been helpful for the post to consider the effects of using no pronouns on a user's mental model, and a better response to the post would be to explore those effects, not to dismiss it outright as a false dilemma. A much better method of dismissing posts that have obvious answers is to not comment on them.
Well, thinking in a false binary, when there are far more choices, as the article does, already trivialises the subject matter.
Presenting material in a way that resonates with the target audience of each particular product or service is important, and a little time spent getting it right will almost certainly generate more benefit than writing code for the same amount of time.
FWIW I agree with pretty much everything you said in your previous comment (although perhaps not the first sentence).
EDIT: Or perhaps his last sentence irritated you? If he'd omitted "Now, get back to writing code!" would you still feel the same?
> Avoid using “you,” “your,” “me,” and “my” as much as possible. Sometimes, text that identifies people directly can be ambiguous and can even be interpreted as an insult.
Switched Gmail settings to icons for buttons just to check if this is being used here and immediately notice annoying inconsistency in Gmail's UI: Archive button has an icon of a storage box with an arrow (good choice), but has ambiguous tooltip saying 'Archive', whilst Delete button has an icon of just a trash bin with a proper action-tooltip 'Delete'. 'Report spam' has the worst icon by far, I think. Then again - manila folder icon for moving to label (which is a bit unclear) - it acts very much like the 'archive' action, but somehow doesn't have an arrow. Labels button tooltip - 'Labels' - also lacks the word 'apply/attach/add'. I understand that you can get accustomed to almost anything, but this doesn't mean you have to fight your way through UI.
I thought a bit more about this and now I think that a verb is more or less mandatory for buttons of actions, i.e. for buttons that change some objects properties or performs actions on the objects ('Apply labels', 'Move to trash' are probably better than 'Labels', 'Trash'). Verbs are not mandatory for buttons that just change your position inside the system ('Go to inbox' is probably worse than 'Inbox').
* Use a button interface for all actions the user can take: [send][archive].
* Use a link for nouns / places the user can go: inbox | archive | trash.
* Icons tend to be actions (a star for 'mark this as a favorite', a trash can for 'delete this thing', a paper+pencil for 'edit this entry'), so they get grouped more with the buttons.
I don't think it's fair to say that a UI shouldn't attempt to have some "personality". Whether it is ultimately effective (or not) is another argument entirely, but there is more to UX than just the style and "ease of use".
Copy, labeling and alerts are all part of the UX too.
For a tool that you use as often as Gmail, you want something functional, but that doesn't mean it can't let the personality of Google shine through. Gmail's empty spam page says something like "No spam here, Hurray!" where as Outlook's says generic and bland like "There are no items in this view".
However, consider a shopping experience that you may use a couple of times per year at most. The application has a real opportunity to expose the user to your brand.
Also consider a new user experience that you only ever do once. These processes are boring, so maybe some personality helps conversions and reduces falloff.
There is no right answer here because there are so many different types of applications.
And believe it or not there are some users who won’t understand that it isn’t really a person. Some minds are very prone to anthropomorphizing especially when they are dealing with something they find hard to understand and unpredictable like a computer.
Somewhat counterintuitively, this doesn't mean your interface pretends it's a person; but all copy is written by people -- words are used by people only (pretty much), directly or indirectly -- and the words chosen are projecting some personality onto the application whether you want to or not.
There are no words/phrases/instructions without baggage, connotations, etc..
I also think that physical vs. digital is a big determinant of whether Yours or Mine is appropriate. When using a physical object, you are at the very least spatially aware of all of the components. Your pencil, car, hammer are all items that operate due to mechanisms easily understandable at a very basic level simply by observation. There's no mystery. It is purely an object, and it is my object.
Digitally, however, you cannot understand the mechanism by which a mobile app works simply by observing it. There is a level of obscurity, a veil of mystery, as if someone, something were behind the scenes pulling the strings. Unlike looking at an engine and observing all of the gears and rods involved in making an axle spin, one cannot observe bytes of data travelling between microprocessors. I think it's that layer of obscurity that gives digital products a degree of personality that a car or hammer or pencil or knife cannot have. There's something at play that you're not seeing with digital interfaces, and perhaps we most comfortably assume that another human is involved in the process.
But what if you go for a more minimalist approach? What if your app doesn't use possessive pronouns at all?
You could just display "Settings", "Settings have been saved!", "Profile picture has been changed." etc and I've seen apps that do this natively.
Although, to a certain extent I suppose that proves his point, as apps will be forced to act as though they aren't using possessive pronouns if they use "My" - it would be a little strange to display messages like "My profile picture has been changed", etc. Using the possessive pronoun "Your" is the only one with special modifiers throughout the app's structure that don't sound redundant.
And it's widely accepted that a website should use the polite form.
Why would a computer/website be polite to me? They have no concept of these things. Just using polite forms doesn't mean you're being polite, you have to mean it. A computer is as of yet incapable of having intentions.
The computer isn't being polite to you, the company whose website you are on, is. In the same way your computer isn't being casual and friendly with you - the person who wrote you the email is.
Whether it's an app or a website, it's all just a conduit - and I don't think it's farfetched to say that by and large companies use polite forms when referring to their (potential) customers.
There are really interesting problems that you come across when you build multi-lingual interfaces.
More business-y sites tend to use the formal "Sie" though, including most ISPs and telecoms.
This is not a pragmatic approach to the problem - where is the research? Where is the substantiation of why left is better than right? There is a rationalisation provided, sure, but people rationalise shooting heroin too, so that doesn't go too far. It would be interesting to see a study on this.
I think there is a decent analog here with unadorned naming being like flat design and my/your being like skeuomorphism.
If we're actually having some kind of debate about how to signifiy in an interface I'd probably choose "profile" and forego "my" and "your" as they imply a relationship that does not exist and a facility in the interface that is not possible.
Given that most people aren't actually concerned about that and just want their stuff to be "nice" or "friendly" I'd pick one of "your" or "my", whichever fit in the grammar of the rest of the system, and be consistent.
Consider for example the following two imagined scenarios:
In order to send a new tweet:
1) You click a button that says "Send My Tweet".
2) You click a button that says "Send Your Tweet".
In the first case, you are telling Twitter to send the tweet you just wrote. The power lies with Twitter to send it.
In the second case, Twitter is telling you to send the tweet. In this case, the user has all the power.
.
.
It's interesting to compare Facebook's approach with Twitter's:
Facebook is a bit of an oddball in addressing the user. Facebook usually addresses the user as "you", but it sometimes refers to the user in the third person. On the home screen, it asks "How's are you doing, Sean?" and displays the link to your profile as just your name. On your actual profile page, if you hover over the Activity Log button, it will say "See your activity on Facebook". But then when you go to privacy settings, it says "Who can see my stuff?". This makes a ton of sense. By using "my" instead of "your", Facebook is making the user feel like they have control of their stuff.
Twitter is pretty squarely in the "Me" camp, as evidenced by the link to your profile on the top of the page.
If the website has something informational to tell the user, like a notification, they will always refer to the user as "you".
For example: "Bill just retweeted you", "Bill just liked your status", "Your page is undergoing maintenance".
When you're changing account settings, the website will invariably refer to the user as "you". You are the one who actually needs to perform an action.
For example: "Change your password", "Update your email".
Using "your" is more appropriate for things that already are, or are expected to become, public as a part of the standard workflow (think photo sharing application).
Using "my" works better for things that are private and sensitive, like "My settings" or "My reading list" is often something that should not be shared, or only explicitly shared.
> Interfaces are much more abstract, and much more intelligent; they far more closely resemble social interactions than physical tools.
...therefore if I (the user) feel that I have a social-like interaction with the interface, it means that I am definitely noticing it IS there, whereas if I can feel it as an extension of self, I can get more easily to just ignore it once I get used to it and actually feel that there is "no interface". It's easier to ignore the hammer in your hand the person you're talking to, at least for me (and I believe for most social people).
Then again, if you are creating something like the UI for an ecommerce site, you probably want to give the user part of the feeling that he is in a real shop, that implies a real physical interface, so you say "Your shopping cart" - but I'm not sure this is necessarily a good idea.
Imho, OP did a good analysis of the interaction perspective, but somehow managed to arrive at what is 90% of the time the wrong conclusion (but then again, maybe my 90% is his 10%...).
just a thought. very interesting commentary on the connotations of the usage of "your profile" "my profile' nonetheless.
I always found "My Computer" to be annoying. It's pedantic (no shit, this is my computer), or wrong (no, this is Mike's computer, I'm just borrowing it), or void of useful context (this is a multi-user computer but I'm accessing it from my or someone else's account).
From a testing perspective, individually naming elements based on their ownership attribute makes for hell in scripting, testing, or writing suitable generic instructions (how do you tell Aunt Tilly how to change her settings when "My Computer" has been sensibly renamed "Aunt Tilly's Computer"?).
Sub-par article fails to consider many other relevant alternatives and considerations.
You can easily just test both (with Neither as your control) and survey your users to find out which group is more satisfied with your UI.
When it comes to what customers want or will like, what you "think" is almost always wrong, so stop thinking and start testing.
And it gets worse with every Windows release. The standard file dialog in Windows 7 is absolutely ridiculous. There is a tree on the left, with absolutely worthless (to me) entries: Desktop, Favorites, Recent Places, My Photos, My Documents, etc., etc. The actual hard drive navigation is at the very bottom, and usually requires scrolling.
A sane navigation tree would just be a list of volumes.
You'll find that that left tree is useful if you flow with the design of Windows rather than fighting against it. Desktop is meant to be an easily visible place for short-term storage of working documents. Recent Places is pretty smart about remembering frequently used local and network locations. My Photos / My Documents are totally useful if you actually put things there like the system is designed to do.
If you insist on drilling down to that hard drive navigation, don't blame the software for yourself deciding to break past the abstraction.
1) They aren't my photos, they are my family's photos. My wife has her own user account and needs just as much access as I do. I'm sure there is some sort of "sharing" solution, but then you lose the convenience of having one location for "My Pictures", so what's the point?
2) C:\photos is a lot easier to type than C:\Users\xxx\Pictures. I much prefer typing to mouse navigation.
3) Windows will actually admit that C:\photos is a directory on a hard drive. If I navigate to "My Pictures", I get some pseudo-directory called Libraries > My Pictures.
Also, are you really so limited that you think there is only One Way to organize files on a hard drive, to the point that you feel the need to mock a stranger for choosing a different location on his hard drive for photos? I expect that snark on anonymous internet forums, but having it embedded in the operating system is another matter.
In system generated messages "yours" seems more appropriate. It implies that someone else is talking to the user. If I got a message "My email was received", I would feel like talking to myself.
The UI is an extension of human brain. So labeling things with "mine" will make the UI feel natural. My contacts feels closer than your contacts.
I wrote about the same subject: http://mouly.me/2011/07/my-contacts-or-your-contacts/
My power drill doesn't refer to the chuck as "Your/My chuck". My toaster doesn't refer to to the bread as "Your/My bread" and my car doesn't refer to "your/my door is ajar".
* Interestingly enough, it seems like most of the major platforms have moved away from using either "my" or "your" altogether, eg Facebook and Twitter both just have Friends, Followers, Tweets, Photos, etc.
A/B testing isn't magic fairy dust that settles design questions. You need to have a clear hypothesis to test. It's especially difficult if the design question concerns long-term perceptions and psychology. An A/B test in this situation is anything but straightforward.
I'd be interested to learn about how this design decision was made in the companies that have had to face it.
The incorrect non-reflexive use of myself to avoid the potentially incorrect choice of I vs. me. As in:
... rather than the interface being an extension of myself.
The button should be called "My Settings" (or just "Settings") because it's a command I'm shouting at the program. Compare with "Save"/"Open"/"Like". I want to open MY settings. If the settings can't be loaded the program should tell me: "There was an error loading your settings", because the program is talking to me. The documentation could tell me the following: "To open your settings, click the My Settings button". So yes, I favor the conversation pattern. Just pretend you're talking to a human or to a computer with speech recognition.
"My..." implies the interface is an extension of the users brain.
"Your..." implies the interface is a tool to be mastered.
Both might be appropriate for certain use cases. Using github as an example interface with personality, perhaps "My Forks" but "Your SSH Keys"?
Findings from cognitive science and UI research:
People attribute personalities to everything, including software.
Personalized emails, with a person's name, have higher conversion rates.
One of the ways the brain deals with reading is to pretend, on some level, that it's having an imaginary conversation. Concrete description of objects, use of the active instead of passive tense, questions, and keywords like "You," all improve understanding, attention, and memorability.
It's that simple, guys. The research is out there. It's not hard to find. It's not hard to read, either! Just pick up a couple books on writing/cog sci and subscribe to the ACM and do a quick search of their library once in a while.
Or continue to have an argument based solely on what you feel, as if the data is not out there… that works, too.