Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lio | Hacker News Reader

> Interjections like “oops!” or “uh-oh” are typically unnecessary and can sound insincere.

This is a good observation.

I'd also avoid stuff like "Maybe Later" buttons, instead of allowing the user to just say "No".

I believe the idea is to gently inform the user that they can perform the action later but it comes across as a passive aggressive way of removing control.

i.e. the user wants to say no, full stop, but the app/website is telling them that they'll just nag them again until they accept regardless.

View on HN

> > Interjections like “oops!” or “uh-oh” are typically unnecessary and can sound insincere. > > This is a good observation.

I agree. That reminds me: > Imagine a doctor performing a procedure and then suddenly saying “Oops! Something went wrong…” That is the last thing anyone wants to hear when the stakes are high, whether it’s surgery or someone’s source of income. That is not the time to be cutesy or fluffy. > —https://wix-ux.com/when-life-gives-you-lemons-write-better-e...

Not sure this point applies to software, but I find a doctor saying oops to be very comforting. If I know when he screws up I don't have to be suspicious of him the rest of the time.

True story from my rotation on General Surgery during my third year of medical school (UCLA; 1973):

I'm in the O.R. doing what 3rd year med students do, namely holding a retractor to help keep the operative site open and perfectly exposed.

The attending, a very senior surgeon, vice-chair of the department, tells the senior resident, "When you accidentally nick a big blood vessel, instead of saying 'Oops," say "There!'"

My father is a retired surgeon, and has told me he was trained the same way — to say “there” rather than “oops”. The rest of the OR staff know what you mean, and it doesn’t spook a patient or other people who might overhear.

“Maybe later” or “Not now” can be useful to indicate that this isn’t a permanent decision. The situation where it’s bad is when it’s the only option next to an “Always allow” option (or similar), which is just a dark pattern to prevent the user from permanently disabling something.

When there is a choice between applying a decision once vs. permanently, then that should rather be made using a separate “remember my decision” checkbox or a “No, and don’t ask me again” option (or similar).

> “Maybe later” or “Not now” can be useful to indicate that this isn’t a permanent decision.

Useful for who? When was the last time you hit "Maybe Later" and meant it? To a consumer, that message just means "this annoying popup will be back later".

On system upgrade dialogs. I want to stay up to date and I won't remember to do it but usually I don't want to do it right now.

In fact, I use this style of "snooze" quite often as a user.

> separate “remember my decision” checkbox

I have a beef with these and not really any place to complain, so here it is: I hate apps that provide this functionality but have no way for you to reach into the app and undo it. Sometimes I want to be reminded of something and I accidentally check this thing (or click "No, and stop reminding me") and either the app doesn't provide a way for you to undo the permanence of your choice or it's hidden somewhere that I have no possible way to find.

My favorite example of this: by default, the Windows remote desktop client will present an "are you sure" dialog when closing a connection… If just once you check the "don't remind me" box, there is literally no way of undoing that preference except for manual registry hacking. If only Microsoft were so respectful of their users preferences in all other cases!

https://superuser.com/questions/1617750/how-to-restore-remot...

There should definitely a way to undo it. Traditionally there is at least a “reset all my decisions” button in the settings.

I actually like "maybe later". As soon as it's provided with "no" together (which IME usually is the case), I have no issue with it.

Indeed. But often I do see just the two options "Yes" / "Maybe later" and this is infuriating.

That's it in one. The cutesy "be kind" language does not hide the reality of the "heads I win, tails you loose" choice from the user.

I've no problem with "yes / maybe later". To me, "maybe later" implies "no" is also a possibility. I don't read passive/aggressiveness into it, and I don't need a separate "no" option which would add nothing.

Why do I like seeing the "maybe later" option? Because the app's devs are telling me "this is possible to configure later; we thought about this flow, and you won't be locked out of this option if you skip it now".

If they don't show this wording, maybe they thought about it, maybe not. Maybe I'll be forced to reinstall the app from scratch. Who knows!

So very true. Atlassian were the worst at this; their laggy software would error out, filling you with rage, and you'd be faced with a dialog titled something utterly insincere like "Whoops!".

I hate the "Maybe Later"/"Not Now" buttons. I take them as a signal that the software/website/whatever that does that is scammy and to be avoided.

The user must be and feel in control at all times. Taking away agency in most cases is unwarranted. Exceptions may be with children or special needs groups.

While I agree with this as a general rule, it ignores an entire class of problem. I work in a data preservation space - if we let people delete things every time they wanted to, it'd be a disaster. Instead we 'tombstone' it (hide from everyone but admin), then let someone with some space from the process confirm it actually should be deleted. We've averted dozens of disasters this way.

I'd argue the user must feel in control, as you say, but not necessarily _be_ in control.

Same here. We implemented a “soft delete” in a system I worked on recently, as actually deleting something could have legal implications. We just have a table column where we mark it as deleted and then exclude those from any retrieval queries. If we ever need to undelete, someone can manually update the database.

Well, it ties in with another rule I have, don’t allow for stupidity. If a user can do some stupid things, it’s not designed well. (Say your deletion problem)

But yes, as long as these decisions are made consciously by a team, it’s get the attention it deserves.

I don’t know—this kind of deception is how the industry attracts more regulation. Delete needs to go back to meaning delete, and the user should be in actual control.

No. I frequently undelete or unsend. Others do too. Removing the Windows Recycle Bin or its equivalent would not make my life better by "giving me agency".

One of the first things I do in any OS is disable the recycle bin or equivalent functionality. To each his own!

In my head I just replace "Maybe later" with "Maybe never".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com