Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!osiris!consult
From: consult@osiris.UUCP (Unix Consultation Mailbox )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: friendly messages
Summary: lots of terms, no definitions
Message-ID: <2849@osiris.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 89 21:16:25 GMT
References: <435@laic.UUCP> <955@auspex.UUCP> <9218@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <5734@bsu-cs.UUCP> <90507@sun.uucp> <259@celerity.UUCP> <4970@xenna.Encore.COM> <1069@auspex.UUCP>
Reply-To: consult@osiris.UUCP (Unix Consultation Mailbox (Phil))
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Information Systems
Lines: 52

Despite the fact that a lot of people have a lot to say (or flame) on this
issue, it seems that there is really very little controversy, at least about
what error messages should say.  The consensus seems to be (correct me if
I'm wrong.. :-) that error messages should say just enough to please the
user and no more.  The problem here is (of course) defining the term "user".
The same problem exists with the term "user-friendly".  It's not possible to
lump all users of any commercial computer system into a single group with
definite and consistent interface preferences.  This applies to error
messages as well as the syntax of a command-line interface or whether the
system has a command-line at all (e.g. Mac).

In general I won't touch anything "user-friendly" with a ten-foot mouse.
This is because I personally find the typical "user-friendly" interface to
be anything but a help to software development.  I already understand the
system I am working on pretty well; I am familiar with navigating UNIX
filesystems, making system calls, predicting the effect of wildcards in
shell scripts, etc.  I don't want to be led by the hand through fifteen
nested menus to get into an editor.  I don't want to ever *have* to use a
mouse - I've been a touch-typist since long before I ever worked with
computers and because I *write text* for a living, it's much more important
for me to have my fingers on the home keys than to be able to point to a
menu selection when I'm just trying to logout.

We write applications on UNIX systems which run on UNIX systems and are
used by (largely) unskilled users.  We have to be very careful about what
our "users" see, that it is as consistent as possible between systems and
neither cryptic nor prolix.  When our programmers are called upon to
second-guess the users by predicting the acceptability of a certain
feature, they frequently get it wrong because they are looking at the
system from a completely different angle.  (We are slowly learning that
we don't have the smarts to outguess our "unsophisticated" users.)

I don't like systems that assume that I have no experience with them.  Many
other programmers that I work with feel the same.  Some don't.  Some
otherwise perfectly good programmers always have to be led very carefully
the first time through something or they won't get it.  On the other side
of the coin, some applications try to assume that the "user" knows a lot
more than they really do; most of our "users" don't like it when our systems
do this, though some do.

I think the fundamental problem here is that some people haven't yet
figured out that they are trying to make everybody happy at once, which we
know (cf. Heisenberg :-) cannot be done in reality, whatever that is.

I'll keep using UNIX as long as I can, unless I find something I like
better.  I have so far found no "user-friendly" interfaces which I find
more intuitive or productive than the Bourne shell.  If I ever do, I'll be
sure to let everyone know.  :-)


Phil Kos
Curmudgeon Supreme