Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!titanic.cs.wisc.edu!tonyrich
From: tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: System Error Handling (Was: Mac interface bashing
Summary: Treat the user with respect!
Keywords: mac, interface, system errors
Message-ID: <9758@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 90 14:39:36 GMT
References: <3453.25d9361c@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 62

In article <3453.25d9361c@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
writes:

> I, for one, am strongly against modifying the user interface such that things
> such as system errors are better explained.  I feel that this could be a HUGE
> mistake.

[Example of a user handling a simple error improperly omitted here.]

> Anyway, to 'improve' the user interface so that system errors were better
> explained would mean that the average user would have even more chance for
> problems - it sounds more like something they could fix themselves.
> The current system error method works well - it's cryptic enough to
> scare them into asking a consultant.

I strongly disagree.  The problem with something like ID = 03 is that
although it may represent a problem only a technical person can solve,
the everyday user has no way of *knowing* that from what is presented.
Rather ordinary errors have been reported by number throughout computing
history, unfortunately.  *Nobody* likes having an uninterpreted number
dumped out with no explanation of what's wrong or what to do about it.

So the user's reaction is frustration and helplessness in the face of a
serious problem.  User-friendliness has evaporated at a time when it's
needed most!  Confidence in the whole machine is suddenly undermined.

I agree that a complex technical explanation is inappropriate because it
may lead to exactly the situation you describe -- a well-meaning but inept
attempt to fix it which actually makes things worse.  But the user should
be treated with respect, not "scared into asking a consultant."  (What if
there's no consultant?  These computers are used in all sorts of situations,
some of them time-critical.)

A courteous, nontechnical message should be presented which tells the user
that a problem has occurred that he or she is not expected to understand or
solve, but it should ALSO say what the user can and should do that will
lead to a solution if the problem persists.  How about something like:

   "A complex internal technical problem has been detected.  Try restarting
   the machine.  If the problem persists, notify a qualified technician that
   SYSTEM ERROR 03 occurred; the technician will need that information."

This tells the user that:
  1.  It's not a simple problem and probably isn't the user's fault.
  2.  The problem might go away or it might persist.
  3.  It's a technical problem the user is not expected to handle.
  4.  The error number should be remembered but need not be understood.

It's important that the user is left with something constructive to do:
remembering and reporting the error number, restarting the machine,
noticing whether the problem persists, and notifying a technician if
it does.  A technical problem on the machine's part need not lead to
a what-do-I-do-now problem on the user's part, and it shouldn't.

I think that sort of error notification would be much more satisfying.

  Tony
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:       tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu  Phone:  608-271-8450
Disclaimer:  The opinions above are mine.  Others may agree or disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------