zlacker

[return to "Why users cannot create Issues directly"]
1. ok1234+Mh[view] [source] 2026-01-02 04:29:02
>>xpe+(OP)
100% agree.

If it's someone else's project, they have full authority to decide what is and isn't an issue. With large enough projects, you're going to have enough bad actors, people who don't read error messages, and just downright crazy people. Throw in people using AI for dubious purposes like CVE inflation, and it's even worse.

◧◩
2. Sohcah+XU1[view] [source] 2026-01-02 18:20:59
>>ok1234+Mh
> people who don't read error messages

One of my pet peeves that I will never understand.

I do not expect users to understand what an error means, but I absolutely expect them to tell me what the error says. I try to understand things from the perspective of a non-technical user, but I cannot fathom why even a non-technical user would think that they don't need to include the contents of an error message when seeking help regarding the error. Instead, it's "When I do X, I get an error".

Maybe I have too much faith in people. I've seen even software engineers become absolutely blind when dealing with errors. I had a time 10 years ago as a tester when I filed a bug ticket with explicit steps that results in a "broken pipe error". The engineer closed the ticket as "Can Not Reproduce" with a comment saying "I can't complete your steps because I'm getting a 'broken pipe error'".

◧◩◪
3. tracer+072[view] [source] 2026-01-02 19:32:55
>>Sohcah+XU1
> I do not expect users to understand what an error means

I'm not sure I agree.

Reason ?

The old adage "handle errors gracefully".

The "gracefully" part, by definition means taking into account the UX.

Ergo "gracefully" does not mean spitting out either (a) a meaningless generic message or (b) A bunch of incomprehensible tech-speak.

Your error should provide (a) a user-friendly plain-English description and (b) an error ID that you can then cross-reference (e.g. you know "error 42" means the database connection is foobar because the password is wrong)

During your support interaction you can then guide the user through uploading logs or whatever. Preferably through an "upload to support" button you've already carefully coded into your app.

Even if your app is targetting a techie audience, its the same ethos.

If there is a possibility a techie could solve the problem themselves (e.g. by RTFM or checking the config file), then the onus is on you to provide a suitably meaningful error message to help them on their troubleshooting journey.

◧◩◪◨
4. alexsm+On5[view] [source] 2026-01-03 20:09:53
>>tracer+072
This is not about understanding the message, but switching user mental activity. I go myself in the similar situations many times. One example: I tried to pay my bills in online bank application, but got into error. After several attempts, I did read message and it say "Header size exceed..." . It give me clue that app probably put too much history into cookies. Clear browser data, log in again, and all got works.

Even when error message was clearly understandable for my expertise, it took surprisingly long tome to switch from one mental activity - "Pay bills", to another - "Investigate technical problem". And you have to throw away all short memory to switch into another task. So all rumors about "stupid" users is direct consequence from how human mind works.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. 7bit+QU6[view] [source] 2026-01-04 11:06:02
>>alexsm+On5
> This is not about understanding the message, ...

99% of the population have no idea what "Header size exceeded" means, so it absolutely is about understanding the message, if the devs expect people to read the error.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Sohcah+hw9[view] [source] 2026-01-05 09:44:15
>>7bit+QU6
Yeah, I would certainly not expect the user to understand what to do about a "Header size exceeded" error.

But I WOULD expect the user, when sending a message to support, to say they're getting a "Header size exceeded" error, rather than just say "an error".

[go to top]