It's an orphan.
Okay, kill it.
In my line of work, this sort of conversation would not be considered unusual. Oh, didn't I mention? I'm a computer scientist.
Computer scientists are immersed in an odd, specialized language that contains some unfortunate imagery. You'll be glad to know we're talking about killing processes inside a computer rather than, say, baby seals or Irish children, but such phrasing is less the exception than the rule. Microsoft is associated with the Blue Screen of Death, the outcome of a computer crash. The Apple equivalent is a more soothing gray color that goes by the name of a Kernel Panic.
Death, killing, crashes, panics... Why don't computer scientists have nice ways to describe what's happening in a computer? One possibility is that we're just reacting in a natural way to how the computer is programmed to talk to us. Imagine tinkering with the software guts of a computer. As you work, you receive a barrage of judgments about your shortcomings:
Illegal operation. Halt. Okay, you try something different. Fifty message scroll by: Warning. Error. Warning. Warning. Error. Access violation. This isn't going so well. Relay denied. Process terminated. But... Invalid input. Bad delimiter. Oh, come on! Operation aborted. Catastrophic failure.
Feeling like a criminal yet? Now, most computer scientists don't pay much attention to this stream of trash talk. We're used to it. It's just the way computers talk. That is, it's the way other computer scientists and programmers have built computers to behave. A cycle of dysfunction, you might say.
Oh--in all this talk of destruction and criminal behavior, I almost forgot to mention sex. Computer jargon can sometimes be misinterpreted when it creeps into ordinary conversation. At my ten-year college reunion a while ago, I was talking with my roommate, also a computer science major.
He: Have you talked to Heather lately?
Me: No, but I fingered her a while ago...
Pause for the looks of horror, followed by resignation, on the faces of both of our wives. finger is a program that lets you look up status information about someone working on a computer that may be halfway around the world: their name, their phone number, when they last logged in, and so forth. It doesn't sound like that, though, does it?
This would all be okay if there were a high wall between the way the computers talk to computer scientists (like me) and the way they talk to end users (like you, probably). But there isn't. Every single one of the phrases I've listed above appears in error messages aimed at the general public. You've seen them, right? You're probably not used to being verbally disciplined in this way by a computer. It's our fault. Sorry.
But maybe we do better when it comes to images and icons on computers... Not so much. Here's an example: The One Laptop Per Child project has the goal of distributing laptop computers to children in developing countries, worldwide. An OLPC interface designer considers the following icons:
He writes, [The icon on the left, currently in place] is supposed to represent the user - in an abstract iconic way - but sadly, it also looks very much like a symbol widely associated with mortality, toxicity and military killing - the skull and crossbones... He's pretty much right. Let's give away laptops to kids, each labeled with the equivalent of a Mr. Yuck symbol. Maybe we just can't help it.
I'm wrong about that. All is not lost. When the Twitter servers are down, an error message appears telling you this, along with an image designed by Yiying Lu. Twittering birds trying to resurrect an ungainly but cute whale. I feel better now.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Chicken Mãâàn
Tinkerertink69
Alan Milner
skypixie0
Con Chapman
just phyllis for now
Salon.com
Comments
Her favorite phrase, when the omega (as in a long, long way before you get to beta) tester (me) failed to get it was, UBD. I'm amazed she didn't use that as an error message: "UBD, replace user."
UBD for those not in the know, stands for User Brain Damage.
She did go on to become a very successful computer professional, proving everyone can learn.
Kellylark, the fear and loathing that computer jargon inspires in people is well-understood among some computer scientists; others think it's good for end users to learn about it all. (The latter are mostly wrong, I think.)
Right, Dorinda. Abort does have unfortunate connotations.
Hey, Malusinka, one of the critical lessons that developers of end user applications need to learn, ideally early in their careers, is to avoid cleverness. At least, what they perceive as cleverness. The Interface Hall of Shame is practically a handbook for what not to do in this area.
r
But I wouldn't have a clue what that Twitter image meant if it showed up on my screen.
As to giving away cheap laptops to unsupervised kids........sure, that's just what the overpopulated third world needs---young kids exposed to internet porn so they can further exacerbate an already bad population situation. Somebody just wasn't thinking on that one--or maybe they were?
Lee, I've updated the post: There's an actual error message to accompany the logo. I like the fail whale, too, dianaani.
Owl, I debated whether to include any sociological comments on computer culture--for example, that computer science has the lowest population of female students across all of the sciences and engineering, as well as math--but I'll leave further analysis to the experts. Linguistic analysis, too. I'm just interested in the flavor of the examples.
rw, I think download speeds in developing companies still trail behind those of developed countries, about 10% of what we have in the U.S. on average, so kids are probably doing other things than looking at pictures. But it's a good question, whether OLPC can improve people's lives by technology. I hope so, but I don't know.
Jeanette! It is unexpected that computer scientists could be so insensitive, given their renowned social skills. You just never know...
Hi, lorianne. What kind of music? Maybe the theme to M*A*S*H? I could go with that.
Well said, Rob.
Hi, OE. That's exactly right. The funny thing is that it turns out to be kind of hard to test your own stuff (which is why big software organizations often have separate teams for quality assurance, as I'm sure you know). A programmer understands exactly what he's built (ideally), and knows exactly what choices to make at each point (again ideally) to work through a process. This isn't the best person to figure out when the system will break, or even how well it can be used by someone without specialized knowledge.
Well written and informative post, as well as funny.
I always thought the abusive language was a joking reflection of how the computer feels about your use of it, as interpreted by computer scientists.
This is good! I think you have something here, at least from what I've heard from some developers about how they view useres.
That's a very funny image, Julie. I was going to add a bit to the original post along comparable lines: That the real goal in designing usable applications is convincing people that they're not imprisoned in a horrible little box that only lets them do what the designer allows, rather than what they actually want to do. That's an exaggeration--usability has made great strides over the past few decades--but usability is still a hard nut to crack.
There's two kind of lovers and two kind of brothers,
And two kind of babies to hold.
There's two kind of cherries and two kind of fairies,
And two kind of mothers I'm told, so I'm told
Are the Good Times Really Over for Good?
Also, look for Mac McAnnally, one of my songwriting heroes.