[bulltale]

I think there is a strong causation between the way products address their users (not only software, but also cars, appliances, physical forms), and the perceived value of that product.

Step into a luxury car and ask yourself, why do I see this car as luxurious? Sure, it looks nice, but it will also convey a message that says: "When we created this car, we really tried to make you feel comfortable, treated well and respected".

This might seem like over stretching the question in the link, but underneath lies the question: "How hard do we want to try to serve the end user".

[gbog]

> luxury car > "When we created this car, we really tried to make you feel comfortable, treated well and respected"

Do you really believe that? Do you think that cheaper car makers try to make me feel unconfortable, treated badly, etc.? Or at least don't care about it?

I think the most part of this feeling could very well be some suggested feeling. You buy an expensive car, therefore it must be good, and the ads say nothing else, so you feel comfortable because you have been told you should.

Many recent luxury cars do not give a damm for the owners convenience, it shows very well in the fact that most do not have a simple audio plug so you can plug your ipod or phone. Just like we have been told the chemical smell they add on detergents is the smell of clean clothes, and just like we are told that the more toothpaste we put on the brush the cleaner the teeth (in fact, only the brushing is useful, no toothpaste at all is ok too).

[bulltale]

There is fine line between creating a positive experience for the end user, and suggesting a positive experience. Some examples:

Cars: No, cheaper car makers will not degrade the experience, but they will direct less attention to the perceived experience by the end user, also because their margin is lower. Your point about the audio plug: It annoys me too, but this depends on the target audience. Do they value an audio plug over a clean dashboard? Toothpaste: Here a false claim is made. That does not convey respect to the user at all.

What complicates these discussions is that, for example on HN, they are discussed with people who often value features over a smooth experience. But I argue, that for the average high income user, the experience, the treatment is an important factor, next to features.

And to come back to the OP, treating your users properly will enhance the value of your application to this group.

[gbog]

> Do they value an audio plug over a clean dashboard?

"Clean dashboard" is the apparent reason, but there is in fact no difficulty to have a clean dashboard with an audio plug, or put the plug in the gunbox.

There is another reason behind it, an industry agreement, a friend working in this field evocated it in front of me. They just really do not care if it is convenient or not.

Other examples: In supermarket, they put the water bottle packs near the end, because they do not want clients to come, buy a trolley of water, and go home. (It is like that in France, not sure in US) So everyone is extremely annoyed and has to put water packs over eggs, strawberries, clothes, and many other fragile stuff.

Next example: we are told that files are "inconvenient and messy" and many UX guys swallowed it straight. But it is just a big lie. Files are badly needed in Apple products, and I heard some are uplownloading their pdf attachements through dropbox just to use them on their phone or tablets.

Back to cars: I own a Suzuki minivan, very cheap, but in many way more confortable than my previous car (a WV Golf) just because the seat is higher on the road and the inside volume is much bigger. Real comfort is not made of leather and crafted door sounds (yes, cars door slping sound is crafted carefuly), it is made of room around the head and further view on the road.

Back to the OP: treating your users properly is obviously good, but adding too much sweetener on error messages is not the way to treat them properly.

[hiddenfeatures]

That's a very interesting trail of thought.

You could essentially say, that whenever anything does not work, we (the developers) have failed to meet the user's expectation. So we should try to convey this message as gentle as possible - right?

[bulltale]

Yes, we should, but my trail of thought tried to address the deeper (or tangential) rationale for humanized error messages. My argument was that if you humanize error messages, you are increasing the service towards your end user. You convey a message that says "I see that something limits the use of the application, how can I help solve this".

In general, the hierarchy of error prevention and solving should be this:

0. Treat the end user as a normal human being (obvious? well, I wish it was!)

1. Limit the steps a user has to take to a minimum, but no less then is required to execute the main goal of the application.

2. Focus steps as much as possible on doing something that satisfies a needed input by the user (i.e. minimize program management by the user)

3. Try to stop an error from happening before it occurs or asap. (Example: The stop sign when you drag a file in Windows where it can't be dragged, validation per form step).

3. When an error occurs, show a concise, friendly error-message, with is tells the user how to fix the issue or prevent it (if it can be done by the end user).

4. The level of apology should be linear to effect of the error: if the error makes the user feel disrespected, it stops him from finishing the task or delays him. (i.e. apologise a lot if you application crashes, but a little if an e-mail address does not validate).

[politician]

One of the answers contained this hypothetical error message: "I'm sorry that the user interface of this program, your past experience with it, or experience with other similar programs, have led you to believe that you could take such an action at this time, but you can't because ...."