Talk:User error

Merge PEBKAC into User Error

The PEBKAC article seems to lack any reference other than the Jargon File entry. The "Other variations" entry in particular seems to be a repository of invented variations using random synonyms. I suggest adding PEBKAC as a section in the User error article, which provides extended context about the same concept. Diego (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nearly one month after the merge proposal and no comments at all, so I've done the merge keeping all referenced content. Diego (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this article because it instead of laying any blame on the user lays all blame on the constructor. It is like saying that it is the car constructor's fault when there are drunken drivers killing people with them. There are problems you just cannot construct away, and you have to make the user actually learn something. The fault never lies on only one side of the fence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.45.98 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, merge ID-Ten-T Error here. Seems to be a fork of PEBKAC... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Do you want to be bold and make the change yourself? Diego Moya (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if an editor more familiar with the subject could do it. Would you be up to that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody objects in a couple of days I'll merge the articles. Diego Moya (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Diego Moya (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Concept

This section is entirely Wikipedia:Original research. It is unreferenced, and I know of no UI researcher who dismisses the idea of a user error. It is arguable that some more of the article be devoted to design that might prevent user error, but that section is not it. I propose removal unless it is improved. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The ideas in that section were mostly taken from Alan Cooper's About Face, included in the article references. I've seen other UI practitioners criticizing the frequent habit in technicians of blaming the user instead of the design, although I couldn't point to a reference for that right now. Note that the section doesn't point out UI experts dismissing the existence of errors committed by users (that would be absurd), but the blaming of those errors on user incompetence. What are your suggestions for improvement? (Let's stay constructive).

Diego (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The section clearly says "The misunderstanding of the system that leads to the error is fault of the designer, not the user". It's one thing to say that user errors can be minimized by good design, but quite another to say that all errors are the fault of the designer. The section also says that this is the opinion of "user interface designers" - not some, but all. It's a badly written section.

I would replace it with a simple pointing out that good user interface design can minimize user error. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing the article's subject

Maybe this article isn't the best referenced in the world, but the original meaning of "lack of user savvy" is clear. User DJ Clayworth is changing the article's direction by deleting references to that meaning, and the resulting content of "a term sometimes used by HCI practitioners" simply lacks notability for a stand-alone article. Either keep the original meaning or nominate the article for deletion. Diego (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"User error" has long been used to refer to a situation where the user of a system has made an incorrect input. There is certainly a slang usage where it is used in a way of insulting the user, but the most common usage, with a history of more than twenty years, is the one I gave. Here is an example. Also [1] [2] [3] [4].

I have not, as far as I know, removed any references. If I have then feel free to tell me which ones I removed and we'll look at them. I don't see any point in nominating the article for deletion. The subject is an important one in HCI, and deserves an article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is not that the term isn't used in the HCI field, is that there are no references for it giving a definition. The closest one is here, and it uses "human error" or simply "error". A direct search for "user error" in HCI glossaries or papers returns nothing. The only referenced usage is for the slang meaning, and you were deleting its explanation in the article. Diego (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whee! The Google Scholar coverage of "user error" has improved since I wrote the message above. I'll be reviewing those articles to find references for the term. Diego Moya (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the links above? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And they only endorse my previous assertion. Those are usages of "user error", not definitions of it. Some of them don't even use the term like HCI practicioners do! ("showing-error-messages-to-users" != "an error made by the human user") Diego (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My point being that they are clearly usages of the term in the sense of an error made by a user, thus providing evidence that it is used to mean that, and not as the slang meaning "all users are stupid".

Can I suggest that starting an article about terms used to insult users (PEBKAC, ID10T etc.)? It would also clearly be worth an article, and the usage of "user error" in that context can be noted there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The PEBKAC article already existed, and I merged it with this one because it lacked solid references and because it had the same meaning included in the article User error when I did the merger. Neither meaning have good third party coverage, so in theory both could be challenged for deletion. Nevertheless, both meanings are regularly used by technicians in developers and designers forums. I hoped that merging the two would give more weight to the article, specially since both refer to the same concept (an error made by a user) but from different points of view.Diego (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Innacuracies?

the article mentions this: "The Navy pronounces ID10T as "Eye Dee Ten Tango"" The Very First Time I heard of a "ID10T" error, it was in a Navy Intermediate Radar shop, and it was pronounced "Eye Dee Ten Tee". I did hear a member of the U.S. Marine Corp using the described pronunciation several years later. As this was in JAN of 1988, this also seems to be the earliest usage? Paganize (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 11 is dead link

Somebody should track down a new source for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.243.177 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to the archive is included in the reference. Rwessel (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on User error. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19980506
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990211
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201112559/http://usna.org/handbook/navspeak.html to http://www.usna.org/handbook/navspeak.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lost in translation

The (allegedly) Brazilian "BIOS problem" (Burro idiota operando el sistema) might be better rendered into English as an "Obstinate Ass Operating the System", or an "Ignorant Mule Operating the System". In the original, the noun is "burro" (donkey) and the adjectival use of "idiota" (lit.: idiotic; fig.: ignorant) qualifies it as a stupid donkey. The gist translation as "dumb idiot" is not incorrect, but loses the nuance of meaning that implies stubbornness, obstinacy, recalcitrance or pig-headedness, rather than mere stupidity alone. The term "idiota" conveys a meaning which remains, in the Hispanic languages, somewhat more faithful to the implication of "having the mental capacity of a two-year-old" than does the broader use of the term "idiot" in English.

As such, of the two translations suggested, "ignorant mule" is the more faithful to the source language(s), while "stubborn ass" domesticates to English which might, it is hoped, convey the same thing across the oceans. The collocation of "stupid ass" is a direct equivalent, to a native speaker of Br.E, but is thought an unuseful choice in Am.E and/or BEV, where the same collocation is used as an amplifying preface to a potentially weapons-grade profanity that is definitely not implicit in the original, i.e. "stupid ass mofo", an over-translation. In contrast, "stubborn mule" falls into the same defect as "dumb idiot", under-translation, conveying obstinacy but missing stupidity.

Lastly, it is noted that the backronym is valid in Spanish, the world's third language by number of speakers after English and Mandarin. It is not known, to the present contributor, whether or not it is the same in Brazilian Portuguese; plausible, but unimportant to the point at hand, which is that the Brazilian origin is apocryphal, but the backformation itself, from BIOS, makes perfect sense in (at least) Spanish, as does the association of the "BIOS problem" to the general gist of User_error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.49.253 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As a Brazilian who works with IT since 2000's, I never heard "Burro Idiota Operando o Sistema" version of that. All times I heard was BIOS was "Bicho Ignorante Operando (o) Sistema" (Ignorant Beast Operating the System). (I never edit/talk on Wikipedia... I hope I did it correctly. D: ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.132.82.209 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comic

I saw this image and it reminded me of this. Is the wiki allowed to have this image on the page as an example? https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/024/582/PEBCAC_1_.jpg Angieskidney (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the licensing information for the file? Somers-all-the-time (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

"Skill issue" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Skill issue and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Skill issue until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)