I'm trying to dumb down how I mention "whenever the application resets due to an exception-handled runtime error", especially the exception-handled part. What would be a much easier term to understand than "exception-handled runtime error"? Thanks in advance.
A:
Usually something along the lines of "If the application encounters an internal error" seems to be what people use.
John Burton
2009-08-25 07:04:20
Crash is somewhat a high voltage term.
rahul
2009-08-25 07:05:11
"Crash" may scare the reader.
stanigator
2009-08-25 07:06:04
but it's what they know. i think only we consider 'crash' scary. i'd say any user is comfortable with the word 'crash'.
Noon Silk
2009-08-25 07:11:39
+1
A:
Maybe just say "runtime error" rather than "exception-handled runtime error."
Andy White
2009-08-25 07:04:53
It depends on who your users are. I guess you could just say "error" because you're not going to see errors when the app isn't running.
Andy White
2009-08-25 07:14:33
A:
If its for the user I would prefer something like
"Whoops, you caught use in the middle of a system error"
I have seen these kind of messages to be more friendly.
rahul
2009-08-25 07:07:52
I find the 'Whoops' style really annoying, especially when it's not my fault, because it acts like *I* made the mistake.
Noon Silk
2009-08-25 07:18:25
+1
A:
Simply "error".
The word "Runtime" is unneccessary, because the user won't encounter any other errors (as Design/Compile-Time Errors are already caught by you), and "Exception-Handled" is already implicitly stated by the "whenever the application resets" part, as Non-Exception-Handled errors would just bomb the application anyway.
Michael Stum
2009-08-25 07:08:49
+1
A:
Simplify it to just "runtime error". Really the use of exceptions is an implementation detail the user has no use knowing of. What would he do with the exception-handled anyway?
Using the word runtime looks pointless but it is really beneficial. Users often say "I have error" whenever anything they don't expect happens -say they try to open a non-existing file and the program says "There's no such file" - it's "I have error" for many users. Having a slightly more complex text like "runtime error" will help distinguish between the situations when the program actually encounters them and the situations when the users just got lost.
sharptooth
2009-08-25 07:11:15
+1
A:
Fix your program so that it doesn't have user visible runtime exceptions. Better if you can fix it to not have any runtime exceptions at all. Those are a result of some mistake you, as a programmer, have made, and there's no point berating the user about it. Your users can't fix your source code for you.
Personally, I like firefox's approach of displaying the message "Whoops, well, this is embarassing. We can't recover your tabs".
It's important to explain the specific actual situation that has happened. System error, exception, whatever euphamism you come up with is way too generic to be useful, and are really terms that arose because some programmers were too lazy to write seperate messages for each exceptional situation. The terms have no meaning to the user, regardless of what acronym you use. Also, explain what tangible steps the user can take to recover from the situation.
Not in the manual, but at the time, when the problem occurs, on screen. Explain what the user should do.
Breton
2009-08-25 07:16:54
A:
You have not mentioned the type or category of user that is the target of your software. There is also no mention of the users' domain that your software targets.
If your target user base was experienced C++ coders would you try to dumb down?
Sam
2009-08-25 07:39:52