Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Error message humour
106 views
Skip to first unread message
Gervase Markham
Apr 19, 2012, 7:35:33 AM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Is what is happening in this bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete example
of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the CoC which
speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
(It would only be slightly less of a shame if there was a requirement
for a long debate each time something like this came up.)
Note that no-one has even actually said they are offended; this is a
'chilling effect'.
Gerv
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete example
of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the CoC which
speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
(It would only be slightly less of a shame if there was a requirement
for a long debate each time something like this came up.)
Note that no-one has even actually said they are offended; this is a
'chilling effect'.
Gerv
Mike Connor
Apr 19, 2012, 9:39:57 AM4/19/12
to Gervase Markham, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi Gerv,
I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
-- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
-- Mike
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Gervase Markham
Apr 19, 2012, 10:59:14 AM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 19/04/12 09:39, Mike Connor wrote:
> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating
> "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I
> think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive,
Only if you equate physical characteristics with personal value and
> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating
> "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I
> think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive,
worth. I'm not doing that. Are you?
> and thus not in
> the spirit of the CoC.
consists of a tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the idea of
account-as-musclebound-hulk with the suggestion that your account has
used its cartoon muscles to overpower BrowserID. This is a comic image
due to its ridiculousness.
The suggestion that it is in some way _promoting_ human machismo as a
desirable value, rather than laughing at it or using it subversively, is
indicative of a sense of humour failure.
Perhaps you'd object to Popeye <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye> on
the basis that it teaches people that because Popeye is "better" when he
eats spinach and grows big muscles, that is also "inappropriate and far
from inclusive"?
> The CoC is not about banning things,
Gerv
Daniel Cater
Apr 19, 2012, 11:04:33 AM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Select quotes:
"It's unacceptable to have "funny" strings in an application that has 15%+ market share"
"Weapon- and war-related humor is definitely a no-go."
"Possibly we should also investigate whether the "Crash! Bang! Boom!" message is appropriate for users who have possibly lost a relative in the 9/11 attack."
Which left us with the current "void your warranty" lingo, leaving users (especially in enterprise) to ask: "what warranty?".
Robert Accettura
Apr 19, 2012, 11:24:45 AM4/19/12
to Daniel Cater, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Cater <djc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:35:33 PM UTC+1, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:35:33 PM UTC+1, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I am reminded of bug 404661 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404661) in relation to the phrase "loaded gun".
>
> Select quotes:
>
> "It's unacceptable to have "funny" strings in an application that has 15%+ market share"
>
> "Weapon- and war-related humor is definitely a no-go."
>
> "Possibly we should also investigate whether the "Crash! Bang! Boom!" message is appropriate for users who have possibly lost a relative in the 9/11 attack."
>
> Which left us with the current "void your warranty" lingo, leaving users (especially in enterprise) to ask: "what warranty?".
Worth noting about:mozilla can be construed as offensive to those with
>
> Select quotes:
>
> "It's unacceptable to have "funny" strings in an application that has 15%+ market share"
>
> "Weapon- and war-related humor is definitely a no-go."
>
> "Possibly we should also investigate whether the "Crash! Bang! Boom!" message is appropriate for users who have possibly lost a relative in the 9/11 attack."
>
> Which left us with the current "void your warranty" lingo, leaving users (especially in enterprise) to ask: "what warranty?".
fertility problems, in particular "with their children".
Also about:robots states "Robots have seen things you people wouldn't
believe.". The phrase "you people" is considered offensive to some
groups as it was historically used referring to racial divides. It
wouldn't even be used jokingly in most office environments in any
context.
Of course "manifesto" has a negative connotation for many as well.
We can go on... I guess the question is once again: who is OK to
offend and who isn't? Is there a wiki with a list?
--
Robert Accettura
rob...@accettura.com
Boris Zbarsky
Apr 19, 2012, 11:30:59 AM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/19/12 10:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The suggestion that it is in some way _promoting_ human machismo as a
> desirable value, rather than laughing at it or using it subversively, is
> indicative of a sense of humour failure.
Humor (and sense of humor) is very dependent on shared assumptions.
> The suggestion that it is in some way _promoting_ human machismo as a
> desirable value, rather than laughing at it or using it subversively, is
> indicative of a sense of humour failure.
Which means that it's hard to do humor without "failure" in an
environment where backgrounds differ widely. I would ascribe the
failure in such cases to the attempt, not to the sense of humor. First
rule of humor: know your audience. If you don't, it'll probably fail.
How that translates into a context like this, where the audience is
unknown, may in fact be the quote Daniel had about not even trying for
humor in apps with enough market share: the audience is too big and the
chance of failure high.
Note that I don't think this has anything to do with the CoC or
inclusiveness; failed humor attempts are incredibly annoying completely
independent of whether one is actually _offended_ by them. For one
thing, they make the UX worse by requiring more effort on the part of
the reader to decipher what the heck is actually being said in the error
message.
-Boris
Robert Accettura
Apr 19, 2012, 11:39:00 AM4/19/12
to Boris Zbarsky, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzba...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 4/19/12 10:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
> On 4/19/12 10:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
>> The suggestion that it is in some way _promoting_ human machismo as a
>> desirable value, rather than laughing at it or using it subversively, is
>> indicative of a sense of humour failure.
>
>
>> desirable value, rather than laughing at it or using it subversively, is
>> indicative of a sense of humour failure.
>
>
> Humor (and sense of humor) is very dependent on shared assumptions.
>
> Which means that it's hard to do humor without "failure" in an environment
> where backgrounds differ widely. I would ascribe the failure in such cases
> to the attempt, not to the sense of humor. First rule of humor: know your
> audience. If you don't, it'll probably fail.
>
> How that translates into a context like this, where the audience is unknown,
> may in fact be the quote Daniel had about not even trying for humor in apps
> with enough market share: the audience is too big and the chance of failure
> high.
>
> Note that I don't think this has anything to do with the CoC or
> inclusiveness; failed humor attempts are incredibly annoying completely
> independent of whether one is actually _offended_ by them. For one thing,
> they make the UX worse by requiring more effort on the part of the reader to
> decipher what the heck is actually being said in the error message.
>
Curious how i18n plays into humor in UX. Is the policy now to
>
> Which means that it's hard to do humor without "failure" in an environment
> where backgrounds differ widely. I would ascribe the failure in such cases
> to the attempt, not to the sense of humor. First rule of humor: know your
> audience. If you don't, it'll probably fail.
>
> How that translates into a context like this, where the audience is unknown,
> may in fact be the quote Daniel had about not even trying for humor in apps
> with enough market share: the audience is too big and the chance of failure
> high.
>
> Note that I don't think this has anything to do with the CoC or
> inclusiveness; failed humor attempts are incredibly annoying completely
> independent of whether one is actually _offended_ by them. For one thing,
> they make the UX worse by requiring more effort on the part of the reader to
> decipher what the heck is actually being said in the error message.
>
translate word for word?
--
Robert Accettura
rob...@accettura.com
Fred Wenzel
Apr 19, 2012, 11:56:32 AM4/19/12
to Mike Connor, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Gervase Markham
FWIW, since the phrasing used is too outrageous to be reasonably
conceived as serious, I consider it an obvious attempt at humor. If it's
actually funny I'll leave up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I
think this is pretty easy to spot.
~F
On 4/19/12 6:39 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> Hi Gerv,
>
> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
>
> The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
>
> -- Mike
>
conceived as serious, I consider it an obvious attempt at humor. If it's
actually funny I'll leave up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I
think this is pretty easy to spot.
~F
On 4/19/12 6:39 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> Hi Gerv,
>
> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
>
> The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
>
> -- Mike
>
Sheeri Cabral
Apr 19, 2012, 12:13:54 PM4/19/12
to Fred Wenzel, Gervase Markham, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Mike Connor
I think it's "obvious" for people whose first language is English.
I've done a lot of speaking and I've found that while humor is great, titling a talk "I Never Metadata I Didn't Like" gets a *lot* less interest with an international audience than "Understanding Metadata". People whose first language isn't English don't always get the joke, and might not understand what the title really means. (to be fair, I would then have a subtitle, like "Understanding Metadata: I never metadata I didn't like".
Offensive or not, it can be confusing.
-Sheeri
I've done a lot of speaking and I've found that while humor is great, titling a talk "I Never Metadata I Didn't Like" gets a *lot* less interest with an international audience than "Understanding Metadata". People whose first language isn't English don't always get the joke, and might not understand what the title really means. (to be fair, I would then have a subtitle, like "Understanding Metadata: I never metadata I didn't like".
Offensive or not, it can be confusing.
-Sheeri
Christie Koehler
Apr 19, 2012, 12:18:17 PM4/19/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 04/19/2012 04:35 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Is what is happening in this bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
> Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
The primary issue I see with the error message is not its attempt at
> Is what is happening in this bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
> Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
humor (which can also be problematic). Rather, the issue is that the
message employs sexual language, which is not appropriate in this context.
> Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete example
> of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the CoC which
> speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
language and imagery, which if I recall correctly, it does not do so
currently.
-Ck
--
Christie Koehler
Web Product Engineer
ckoe...@mozilla.com
503-928-4133
Christie Koehler
Apr 19, 2012, 12:23:31 PM4/19/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 04/19/2012 08:39 AM, Robert Accettura wrote:
> Curious how i18n plays into humor in UX. Is the policy now to
> translate word for word?
It's my understanding that in this case, the entire phrase would be
> Curious how i18n plays into humor in UX. Is the policy now to
> translate word for word?
translated. Also, L10N is moving towards starting from simplified
english, which would probably not employ such colloquialisms.
Fred Wenzel
Apr 19, 2012, 12:56:37 PM4/19/12
to Sheeri Cabral, Gervase Markham, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Mike Connor
Despite the fact that English isn't my mother tongue either: Point taken.
(Keep in mind that in this particular case, the people seeing this error
message (a.k.a. the target audience) are established members of the
community who have contributed sufficiently to have gained nontrivial
additional access rights, IIRC: access to security bugs).
~F
On 4/19/12 9:13 AM, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
> I think it's "obvious" for people whose first language is English.
>
> I've done a lot of speaking and I've found that while humor is great, titling a talk "I Never Metadata I Didn't Like" gets a *lot* less interest with an international audience than "Understanding Metadata". People whose first language isn't English don't always get the joke, and might not understand what the title really means. (to be fair, I would then have a subtitle, like "Understanding Metadata: I never metadata I didn't like".
>
> Offensive or not, it can be confusing.
>
> -Sheeri
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Wenzel"<fwe...@mozilla.com>
> To: "Mike Connor"<mco...@mozilla.com>
> Cc: mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, "Gervase Markham"<ge...@mozilla.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:56:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Error message humour
>
> FWIW, since the phrasing used is too outrageous to be reasonably
> conceived as serious, I consider it an obvious attempt at humor. If it's
> actually funny I'll leave up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I
> think this is pretty easy to spot.
>
> ~F
>
>
> On 4/19/12 6:39 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>> Hi Gerv,
>>
>> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
>>
>> The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
(Keep in mind that in this particular case, the people seeing this error
message (a.k.a. the target audience) are established members of the
community who have contributed sufficiently to have gained nontrivial
additional access rights, IIRC: access to security bugs).
~F
On 4/19/12 9:13 AM, Sheeri Cabral wrote:
> I think it's "obvious" for people whose first language is English.
>
> I've done a lot of speaking and I've found that while humor is great, titling a talk "I Never Metadata I Didn't Like" gets a *lot* less interest with an international audience than "Understanding Metadata". People whose first language isn't English don't always get the joke, and might not understand what the title really means. (to be fair, I would then have a subtitle, like "Understanding Metadata: I never metadata I didn't like".
>
> Offensive or not, it can be confusing.
>
> -Sheeri
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Wenzel"<fwe...@mozilla.com>
> To: "Mike Connor"<mco...@mozilla.com>
> Cc: mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, "Gervase Markham"<ge...@mozilla.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:56:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Error message humour
>
> FWIW, since the phrasing used is too outrageous to be reasonably
> conceived as serious, I consider it an obvious attempt at humor. If it's
> actually funny I'll leave up to everyone to decide for themselves, but I
> think this is pretty easy to spot.
>
> ~F
>
>
> On 4/19/12 6:39 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
>> Hi Gerv,
>>
>> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive, and thus not in the spirit of the CoC.
>>
>> The CoC is not about banning things, it's about striving to be as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. The biggest shame of all would be if we fail to be inclusive and positive to others because the CoC doesn't explicitly call out every way we can cause harm.
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> On 2012-04-19, at 8:09 AM, Gervase Markham<ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Is what is happening in this bug:
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
>>> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
>>>
>>
>>> Is what is happening in this bug:
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
>>> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
>>>
>>> Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete example of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the CoC which speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
>>>
>>>
Yvan Boily
Apr 19, 2012, 1:22:37 PM4/19/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-04-19 7:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 19/04/12 09:39, Mike Connor wrote:
> On 19/04/12 09:39, Mike Connor wrote:
>> I think the original message could easily be construed as equating
>> "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I
>> think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive,
>
>> "macho" with "awesome" or "more powerful" by an average reader. I
>> think that's inappropriate and far from inclusive,
>
> Only if you equate physical characteristics with personal value and
> worth. I'm not doing that. Are you?
This isn't about you, or me, or Mike, or the vast majority of the
> worth. I'm not doing that. Are you?
audience on this list. Asking if I am offended or is Mike doing
something is distracting from the original discussion.
The issue is that the specific language that is used elicits gender
biased humour based on a specific cultural practice. Injecting gender
biased humour into the authentication system for a system that is
effectively a mandatory point of engagement for the Mozilla community
should be a red flag if we are aiming for inclusiveness.
>> and thus not in
>> the spirit of the CoC.
>
>> the spirit of the CoC.
>
> Comedy ceases to be funny when deconstructed. However: the comedy
> consists of a tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the idea of
> account-as-musclebound-hulk with the suggestion that your account has
> used its cartoon muscles to overpower BrowserID. This is a comic image
> due to its ridiculousness.
You have the context for it to be funny because you thought of Arnie or
> consists of a tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the idea of
> account-as-musclebound-hulk with the suggestion that your account has
> used its cartoon muscles to overpower BrowserID. This is a comic image
> due to its ridiculousness.
Popeye. I found it funny because it immediately brought back memories
of a friend in the military. When I heard the message I actually
chuckled and then said "Ah crap." and filed a bug; this is because even
though I found it funny, I know that it could be misinterpreted for any
number of reasons, and in this case, it is not a necessary bit of
humour. The rest of what you wrote is simply not relevant to the
discussion of whether or not this type of humour should be acceptable
when gender based humour has *already* been called out as an area of
concern.
Al Billings
Apr 19, 2012, 2:15:21 PM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/19/12 7:59 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Comedy ceases to be funny when deconstructed. However: the comedy
> consists of a tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the idea of
> account-as-musclebound-hulk with the suggestion that your account has
> used its cartoon muscles to overpower BrowserID. This is a comic image
> due to its ridiculousness.
Huh. I didn't think my job here was to be funny? You?
> Comedy ceases to be funny when deconstructed. However: the comedy
> consists of a tongue-in-cheek juxtaposition of the idea of
> account-as-musclebound-hulk with the suggestion that your account has
> used its cartoon muscles to overpower BrowserID. This is a comic image
> due to its ridiculousness.
Al
Siddharth Agarwal
Apr 19, 2012, 2:47:08 PM4/19/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 19-04-2012 17:05, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete
> example of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the
> CoC which speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
>
I strongly believe easter eggs or other incidental humour should be
>
> Yvan suggested that I bring the bug to this group as a concrete
> example of a concern. I see nothing in the most recent draft of the
> CoC which speaks against this error message, but it seems he disagrees.
>
banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people. It's
not about "no fun allowed", it's that humour simply doesn't work without
cultural context not everyone who sees it might share.
Yes, that means taking out about:robots, about:mozilla, etc.
Majken Connor
Apr 19, 2012, 3:05:05 PM4/19/12
to Siddharth Agarwal, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
I see this is clearly an attempt at humor, but I, Lucy, founder of
#foxymonkies, find it to be poor taste. I actually agree that the whole
idea of being too macho to handle is sexually charged and it's just not
clever enough to overcome. I think the problem is the word macho. It's
actually a negative word now. Stud is also very male centric. I would not
be opposed to the sentiment which is "you're too awesome for us" but that
is not how this wording reads.
I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with. Someone
could be getting frustrated trying to do something. Making a joke isn't
what they need. Make the joke after the situation is resolved. I do like
interacting with sites that use appropriate humor for their product.
OkCupid is a good example, but then they have dating and sex built in to
the product their offering. I've also seen some sites/apps that try too
hard, I'm just trying to get something done!
It's fun when it's new and not being used by a wide audience yet, but just
as "cookies are delicious delicacies" had to go, I think in the UI isn't
the right place for humor. Sympathy, empathy, friendliness, kindness are
all ok though, IMO.
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
#foxymonkies, find it to be poor taste. I actually agree that the whole
idea of being too macho to handle is sexually charged and it's just not
clever enough to overcome. I think the problem is the word macho. It's
actually a negative word now. Stud is also very male centric. I would not
be opposed to the sentiment which is "you're too awesome for us" but that
is not how this wording reads.
I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with. Someone
could be getting frustrated trying to do something. Making a joke isn't
what they need. Make the joke after the situation is resolved. I do like
interacting with sites that use appropriate humor for their product.
OkCupid is a good example, but then they have dating and sex built in to
the product their offering. I've also seen some sites/apps that try too
hard, I'm just trying to get something done!
It's fun when it's new and not being used by a wide audience yet, but just
as "cookies are delicious delicacies" had to go, I think in the UI isn't
the right place for humor. Sympathy, empathy, friendliness, kindness are
all ok though, IMO.
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
Al Billings
Apr 19, 2012, 4:14:37 PM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/19/12 12:01 PM, Teoli wrote:
> It is part of the job. You will never manage a community without good or
> bad taste joke, without easter eggs.
>
> And the community is more important than employees feeling.
>
There is a difference with having a sense of humor and thinking it is my
job to be funny. I don't think that the latter is a good reason to put
gender based humor in code.
I fully agree we should have a sense of humor.
Overall, this is an argument about nothing. Gerv, just change the error
message and be done with it.
Al
> bad taste joke, without easter eggs.
>
> And the community is more important than employees feeling.
>
There is a difference with having a sense of humor and thinking it is my
job to be funny. I don't think that the latter is a good reason to put
gender based humor in code.
I fully agree we should have a sense of humor.
Overall, this is an argument about nothing. Gerv, just change the error
message and be done with it.
Al
Robert Kaiser
Apr 19, 2012, 4:22:04 PM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Siddharth Agarwal schrieb:
we AFAIK *are* using in our software)? That name is clearly also a joke.
And of course, about:robots, about:mozilla and probably a couple more
things in our software are humor as well.
Robert Kaiser
> I strongly believe easter eggs or other incidental humour should be
> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people.
So what reasonable name will we give the "awesomebar" (which is a phrase
> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people.
we AFAIK *are* using in our software)? That name is clearly also a joke.
And of course, about:robots, about:mozilla and probably a couple more
things in our software are humor as well.
Robert Kaiser
Sheeri Cabral
Apr 19, 2012, 5:14:12 PM4/19/12
to Robert Kaiser, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
...and bugzilla has "zarro boogs found".
-Sheeri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Kaiser" <ka...@kairo.at>
To: mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: Error message humour
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
gover...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
-Sheeri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Kaiser" <ka...@kairo.at>
To: mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: Error message humour
governance mailing list
gover...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Teoli
Apr 19, 2012, 5:19:45 PM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 19/04/12 13:14, Al Billings wrote:
> There is a difference with having a sense of humor and thinking it is my
> job to be funny.
The community is here to have fun. If you are never funny, they won't
> There is a difference with having a sense of humor and thinking it is my
> job to be funny.
have fun, they'll go away (and I know people leaving because Mozilla is
no more as much fun as before). We loose. Over the years, the Easter
eggs (funny or not, good taste or not) placed here and there have given
us sympathy from a lot of people (do a Google search!), and they have
upset people too, Do you think we should remove satanic comments, as
considered by some Christians [1], from our codebase, and from
user-facing pages?
Good taste or bad taste, they give humanity to tools: somebody is behind
them and he doesn't take himself too seriously.
So yes, it really is part of our daily job to be funny.
[1] http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message688443/pg1#10508583
To come back on the subject:
Come on! It is only a friggin' message in a cryptic bugzilla extension
that only a few contributors will see!
--
Jean-Yves
Stormy Peters
Apr 19, 2012, 5:33:46 PM4/19/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Teoli
<news.fak...@localhost.invalid>wrote:
> On 19/04/12 13:14, Al Billings wrote:
>
apologize in advance!
But ... Being funny is not the only way to have fun. For example, I have a
lot of fun playing hockey. I've been told I grin the whole time. It's not
funny, it's fun. (Except perhaps when I extend beyond my skills and end up
bouncing off the wall, having my feet go flying and landing on my tailbone.
Then sometimes it's also very funny.)
I do agree that having an environment where it's not ok to ever tell a
joke, take a risk or make a mistake is not fun.
> Come on! It is only a friggin' message in a cryptic bugzilla extension
> that only a few contributors will see!
It was a user message that wasn't clear. Whether you are offended by the
joke or really like the joke, I think we all want to communicate well and
be understood.
Stormy
<news.fak...@localhost.invalid>wrote:
> On 19/04/12 13:14, Al Billings wrote:
>
>> There is a difference with having a sense of humor and thinking it is my
>> job to be funny.
>>
>
>> job to be funny.
>>
>
> The community is here to have fun. If you are never funny, they won't have
> fun, they'll go away (and I know people leaving because Mozilla is no more
> as much fun as before).
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because of a language issue ... if so I
> fun, they'll go away (and I know people leaving because Mozilla is no more
> as much fun as before).
apologize in advance!
But ... Being funny is not the only way to have fun. For example, I have a
lot of fun playing hockey. I've been told I grin the whole time. It's not
funny, it's fun. (Except perhaps when I extend beyond my skills and end up
bouncing off the wall, having my feet go flying and landing on my tailbone.
Then sometimes it's also very funny.)
I do agree that having an environment where it's not ok to ever tell a
joke, take a risk or make a mistake is not fun.
> Come on! It is only a friggin' message in a cryptic bugzilla extension
> that only a few contributors will see!
joke or really like the joke, I think we all want to communicate well and
be understood.
Stormy
Fred Wenzel
Apr 19, 2012, 5:44:32 PM4/19/12
to Stormy Peters, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/19/12 2:33 PM, Stormy Peters wrote:
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because of a language issue ... if so I
> apologize in advance!
Entirely possible: In my experience, misusing "funny" vs. "fun"
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because of a language issue ... if so I
> apologize in advance!
(adjective) is *by far* the most prevalent language mistake for
nonnative speakers, ever, that they make until it is explained to them.
(Yours truly, a few years ago, included).
~F
Henri Sivonen
Apr 20, 2012, 2:27:21 AM4/20/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> Is what is happening in this bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
> Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
Why would it be a great shame for the "macho studliness" message to be
> Is what is happening in this bug:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746331
> an example of what will happen in the Code-of-Conduct-governed future at
> Mozilla? IMO it would be a great shame if so.
replaced? I think the "macho studliness" error message needs to go
because:
1) It's not clear what it means as an error message (i.e. how does
"macho studliness" map to technical properties of the account that the
user can understand?)
2) en-US UI strings are read by people whose native language isn't
en-US and "studliness" is probably not well understood by many
non-native readers.
3) Gender-related humor is not OK in software products whose primary
purpose is implementing some useful general-audience function.
Regarding points 1 and 2, I had to remove an error message that talked
about "astral non-characters", because the message confused localizers
even though it used correct technical terminology. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_character and
http://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml/#Noncharacters )
Regarding point 3, it's possible to use light or humorous phrasings in
error messages without touching taboo subject matters. I've seen
positive responses both to the wording on Firefox's after-crash
session restore page and to Chrome's crashed-tab page, so it would
probably be a bad idea to word those in a more UI-speak way.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Robert Kaiser
Apr 20, 2012, 11:01:59 AM4/20/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Teoli schrieb:
area I was working in had hit some snags. My belief in the Mozilla
mission pulled me through. I know that many others are not as strong and
pure in that belief, nor can we expect that from everyone. For an
outsider, Mozilla surely looked like a more friendly place when there
was a lot of joking around and people didn't get on the edge because of
those. But that was a long time ago, and perhaps that's the price to pay
for being a larger project, not sure. It surely loses a number of people
and not only wins a few.
Robert Kaiser
> I know people leaving because Mozilla is
> no more as much fun as before
I've been on the edge of that a couple of times myself, esp. when the
> no more as much fun as before
area I was working in had hit some snags. My belief in the Mozilla
mission pulled me through. I know that many others are not as strong and
pure in that belief, nor can we expect that from everyone. For an
outsider, Mozilla surely looked like a more friendly place when there
was a lot of joking around and people didn't get on the edge because of
those. But that was a long time ago, and perhaps that's the price to pay
for being a larger project, not sure. It surely loses a number of people
and not only wins a few.
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
Apr 20, 2012, 11:04:09 AM4/20/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Henri Sivonen schrieb:
actually cannot talk about #3 because, not being a native speaker, I
don't fully understand the message and surely not its hidden references.
Robert Kaiser
> 1) It's not clear what it means as an error message (i.e. how does
> "macho studliness" map to technical properties of the account that the
> user can understand?)
> 2) en-US UI strings are read by people whose native language isn't
> en-US and "studliness" is probably not well understood by many
> non-native readers.
I find those two enough and a different message warranted for this. I
> "macho studliness" map to technical properties of the account that the
> user can understand?)
> 2) en-US UI strings are read by people whose native language isn't
> en-US and "studliness" is probably not well understood by many
> non-native readers.
actually cannot talk about #3 because, not being a native speaker, I
don't fully understand the message and surely not its hidden references.
Robert Kaiser
Majken Connor
Apr 20, 2012, 1:11:39 PM4/20/12
to Robert Kaiser, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Well I'm not sure the fun actually happened in the product itself. The fun
is still out there! (but that's a different conversation)
One thing I realized we all missed the plot on was the question how
*should* questions like this be handled? I'm not sure if in product strings
falls under the Code of Conduct. I imagine there is a different set of
standards that govern products themselves. Maybe that isn't written down
either, maybe that's just usually engagement's domain? The path to
resolution itself seems pretty clear, it would go through the module chain.
Question is what resource would the module owners use to guide their
decisions if they are unsure?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:
> Teoli schrieb:
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
is still out there! (but that's a different conversation)
One thing I realized we all missed the plot on was the question how
*should* questions like this be handled? I'm not sure if in product strings
falls under the Code of Conduct. I imagine there is a different set of
standards that govern products themselves. Maybe that isn't written down
either, maybe that's just usually engagement's domain? The path to
resolution itself seems pretty clear, it would go through the module chain.
Question is what resource would the module owners use to guide their
decisions if they are unsure?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:
> Teoli schrieb:
>
> I know people leaving because Mozilla is
> I know people leaving because Mozilla is
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
Asa Dotzler
Apr 20, 2012, 4:37:17 PM4/20/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 4/19/2012 12:05 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with.
We use humor quite effectively in our crash recovery warning, and for a
> I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with.
piece of client software, there are few more serious failure cases than
crashes. See also the frown-y lego brick in our crashed plug-ins dialog.
- A
Majken Connor
Apr 20, 2012, 5:27:11 PM4/20/12
to Asa Dotzler, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I wouldn't call the frowny lego brick "humour" at least in the sense that I
made it. It's not a joke. It is friendly and shows empathy and is a clear
message. "Hey the symbol for the thing I'm using is frowning, that must
mean something bad!" and it does.
For the crash recover you mean the part that says "Well this is
embarassing" ? Well that's true. It's friendly and conveys something
accurate and honest. Crashes are bad and it's good to be embarrassed when
your product crashes. I wouldn't call this humor either because if it's
"funny" that means it shouldn't be taken literally, which means we're _not_
embarrassed that something broke?
Both of those examples are friendly and use humor in the sense of a good
personality, but they can both be taken literally and are appropriate taken
literally.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 12:05 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
made it. It's not a joke. It is friendly and shows empathy and is a clear
message. "Hey the symbol for the thing I'm using is frowning, that must
mean something bad!" and it does.
For the crash recover you mean the part that says "Well this is
embarassing" ? Well that's true. It's friendly and conveys something
accurate and honest. Crashes are bad and it's good to be embarrassed when
your product crashes. I wouldn't call this humor either because if it's
"funny" that means it shouldn't be taken literally, which means we're _not_
embarrassed that something broke?
Both of those examples are friendly and use humor in the sense of a good
personality, but they can both be taken literally and are appropriate taken
literally.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 12:05 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> > I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with.
>
>
> We use humor quite effectively in our crash recovery warning, and for a
> piece of client software, there are few more serious failure cases than
> crashes. See also the frown-y lego brick in our crashed plug-ins dialog.
>
> - A
> _______________________________________________
> piece of client software, there are few more serious failure cases than
> crashes. See also the frown-y lego brick in our crashed plug-ins dialog.
>
> - A
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
Majken Connor
Apr 20, 2012, 5:28:31 PM4/20/12
to Asa Dotzler, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
And as I hit send I realize I wanted to add: I agree these are great
examples of how to do [this] properly.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't call the frowny lego brick "humour" at least in the sense that
> I made it. It's not a joke. It is friendly and shows empathy and is a clear
> message. "Hey the symbol for the thing I'm using is frowning, that must
> mean something bad!" and it does.
>
> For the crash recover you mean the part that says "Well this is
> embarassing" ? Well that's true. It's friendly and conveys something
> accurate and honest. Crashes are bad and it's good to be embarrassed when
> your product crashes. I wouldn't call this humor either because if it's
> "funny" that means it shouldn't be taken literally, which means we're _not_
> embarrassed that something broke?
>
> Both of those examples are friendly and use humor in the sense of a good
> personality, but they can both be taken literally and are appropriate taken
> literally.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2012 12:05 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>
examples of how to do [this] properly.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't call the frowny lego brick "humour" at least in the sense that
> I made it. It's not a joke. It is friendly and shows empathy and is a clear
> message. "Hey the symbol for the thing I'm using is frowning, that must
> mean something bad!" and it does.
>
> For the crash recover you mean the part that says "Well this is
> embarassing" ? Well that's true. It's friendly and conveys something
> accurate and honest. Crashes are bad and it's good to be embarrassed when
> your product crashes. I wouldn't call this humor either because if it's
> "funny" that means it shouldn't be taken literally, which means we're _not_
> embarrassed that something broke?
>
> Both of those examples are friendly and use humor in the sense of a good
> personality, but they can both be taken literally and are appropriate taken
> literally.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2012 12:05 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>> > I don't really like humor in a situation of failure to begin with.
>>
>>
>> We use humor quite effectively in our crash recovery warning, and for a
>> piece of client software, there are few more serious failure cases than
>> crashes. See also the frown-y lego brick in our crashed plug-ins dialog.
>>
>> - A
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> piece of client software, there are few more serious failure cases than
>> crashes. See also the frown-y lego brick in our crashed plug-ins dialog.
>>
>> - A
>> _______________________________________________
>> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>
Daniel Glazman
Apr 23, 2012, 5:45:57 AM4/23/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Apr 19, 8:47 pm, Siddharth Agarwal <sagar...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I strongly believe easter eggs or other incidental humour should be
> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people. It's
> not about "no fun allowed", it's that humour simply doesn't work without
> cultural context not everyone who sees it might share.
>
> Yes, that means taking out about:robots, about:mozilla, etc.
That is so much a part of our common culture I cannot even imagine
> I strongly believe easter eggs or other incidental humour should be
> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people. It's
> not about "no fun allowed", it's that humour simply doesn't work without
> cultural context not everyone who sees it might share.
>
> Yes, that means taking out about:robots, about:mozilla, etc.
you're suggesting this...
</Daniel>
Johnathan Nightingale
Apr 24, 2012, 5:37:45 PM4/24/12
to Daniel Glazman, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Apr 23, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On Apr 19, 8:47 pm, Siddharth Agarwal <sagar...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 8:47 pm, Siddharth Agarwal <sagar...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> I strongly believe easter eggs or other incidental humour should be
>> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people. It's
>> not about "no fun allowed", it's that humour simply doesn't work without
>> cultural context not everyone who sees it might share.
>>
>> Yes, that means taking out about:robots, about:mozilla, etc.
>
>> banned from software used professionally by over a thousand people. It's
>> not about "no fun allowed", it's that humour simply doesn't work without
>> cultural context not everyone who sees it might share.
>>
>> Yes, that means taking out about:robots, about:mozilla, etc.
>
> That is so much a part of our common culture I cannot even imagine
> you're suggesting this...
I'm not a fan of this suggestion, either, but in any event I think it's off-topic for this newsgroup. dev.apps.firefox (with a specific proposal) would be a better place, if the discussion is to continue.
> you're suggesting this...
J
---
Johnathan Nightingale
Sr. Director of Firefox Engineering
@johnath
0 new messages