Source: jonsi.com
This form acknowledges that the customer may be reluctant to provide a phone number, and provides an explanation for the requirement.
An assurance that it wouldn’t be used for other purposes might be good, but then the message starts to get rather long. And perhaps it’s adequately implied.
One could argue that having the information displayed by default, instead of requiring a specific action on the part of the customer, would be better.
(Good album, by the way.)
Source: Remember The Milk
Providing human-readable examples is a nice touch. The user doesn’t have to think about the difference between mm/dd/yy and dd/mm/yy.
It’s interesting to note that both date format (which is really locale-dependent) and time format (which is a preference) can be treated in the same way.
Source: Leap Motion
If the phone number is “optional for US”, is it mandatory for Australia?
I suspect that Leap Motion in fact only want US numbers. So the phone number is even more optional (is that possible?) for non-US customers. But perhaps the mean that if you are outside the US, the phone number is mandatory.
It’s easy to be unintentionally ambiguous.
Source: Telstra
This message is so poorly worded that you just have to blink in disbelief. The available answers to “Do you want to remove…?” are “Cancel” and “Quit”.
I think of as a “Look at me!” message. It demands unwarranted attention.
Source: Melbourne Symphony Orchestra
Many organisations depend at least partly on voluntary donations. However, an automatic addition of $20 to the ticket price is likely to be seen as manipulative and even dishonest, particularly if accidentally overlooked by the patron.
Source: The Australian (newspaper)
“Illegal”, “character” and “parameter” Well, nothing like speaking your customer’s language.
The original “answer” was useless and worse
Source: NAB (nab.com.au)
If you can’t answer a question, “I don’t know” is a much better response than generic marketing fluff.
I took the first screen shot a few years ago. The improvement in the current version is obvious:
Improved design increases relevance
Now the answers match, to a reasonable extent, the question I asked.
And if the system really doesn’t understand the query (like: “What is the unit of power?”), it has the grace to admit it. “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your last question” is an honest approach, and it’s OK to follow that with some marketing copy.
“I didn’t understand” is an honest response
It’s also interesting to note that the picture of the human in the original has been replaced with a more clearly artificial, cartoon-like figure, and that the ambiguous title “Online Assistant” has been replaced with “Virtual Assistant”.
Source: Sony Ericsson
Apparently this accessory will say nice things about my lifestyle.
It’s easy to let grammatical bloopers slip through. Writers and editors need to watch out for homophones like compliment/complement, principal/principle and stationery/stationary.
Source: Constant Contact
The desire to keep one’s customers is understandable, but kidnapping them is unacceptable.
This sort of message – forcing customers to make a phone call to cancel an account – is particularly hostile to customers in incompatible timezones. Making it difficult to terminate a relationship may be perceived as manipulative and disrespectful.
Source: Microsoft Word
Well, I don’t really know.
Do I want to “redefine” it? And what, precisely, is “it”? And what will happen if I “redefine it”?
This is a classic example of a mistaken assumption that there is a shared language and understanding between the writer of the message and the reader.
A good challenge is to write a clearer message that can be understood without knowing what an “AutoCorrect entry” is. An even better challenge is to figure out a way of eliminating the message entirely.