From the section of the iOS HIG about writing alert copy:
> 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.
> 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..