Last week saw the popularization of some older news about a misunderstanding, prompted by an error caused by technological limitations of mobile phones, that resulted in two deaths and three imprisonments. The whole sad story took place in Turkey. You can read the original story in the Turkish language Hürriyet.

Basically, Emine and her husband Ramazan Çalçoban has recently been separated and were feuding daily on their mobile phones and over SMS text messages. At one point, Ramazan sent a message saying, "you change the subject every time you get backed into a corner." The word for "backed into a corner" is sıkısınca. Notice the lack of dots on the i's in the word. The very similar sikisince -- spelled with dots -- means "getting fucked." Ramazan's mobile phone could not produce the "closed" dotless ı so it he wrote the word with dots and sent it anyway. Reading quickly, Emine misinterpreted the message thinking that Ramazan was saying, "you change the subject every time they are fucking you." Emine showed the message to her father and sisters who, outraged that Ramazan was calling Emine a whore, attacked Ramazan with knifes when he showed up at the house later. In the fight, Ramazan stabbed Emine back and she later died of bleeding. Ramazan committed suicide in jail and Emine's father and sisters were all arrested.

This is certainly the gravest example of a revealing error I've looked at yet and it stands as an example of the degree to which tiny technological constraints can have profound unanticipated consequences. In this case, the lack of technological support for characters used in Turkish resulted in the creation of text that was deeply, even fatally, ambiguous.

Of course, many messages sent with SMS, email, or chat systems are ambiguous. Emoticons are an example of a tool that society has created to disambiguate phrases in text-based chatting and their popularity can tell us a lot about what purely word-based chatting fails to convey easily. For example, a particular emoticon might be employed to help convey sarcasm in a statement that would have been obvious through tone of voice. One can think of verbal communication as happening over many channels (e.g., voice, facial expressions, posture, words, etc). Text-based communication technologies provide certain new channels that may be good at conveying certain types of messages but not others. Emoticons, and accents or diacritical marks for that matter, are an attempt to concisely provide missing information that might be taken for granted in spoken conversation.

Any communication technology conveys certain things better than others. Each provides a set of channels that convey some types of messages but not others. The result of a shift toward many technologies is lost channels and an increase in ambiguity.

In spoken Turkish, the open and closed i sounds are easily distinguishable. In written communication, however, things become more difficult. Some writing system are better at conveying these tonal differences. Hebrew, for example, historically contained no vowels at all! And yet, the consequence of not conveying these differences can be profound. As a result, Turkish speakers frequently use diacritics and the open and closed i notation to disambiguate phrases like the one at the center of this saga. Unfortunately the open and closed i technology is not always available to communicators. Notably, it was not available on Ramazan's mobile phone.

People in Turkey have ways of coping with the lack of accents and diacritical marks. For example, some people would choose to write sıkısınca as SIKISINCA because the capital I in the Roman alphabet has no dot. Emoticons are similar in that they are created by users to work around limitations of the system to convey certain messages and to disambiguate others. In these ways and others, users of technologies find creative ways of working with and around the limitations and affordances imposed on then.

With time though, the users of emoticons and all-caps Turkish words stop seeing and thinking about the limitations that these tactics expose in their technology. In fact, it is only through errors that these limitations become familiar again. While we cannot undo the damage done by Ramazan, Emine and her family, we can "learn from their errors" and reflect on the ways that the limits imposed by our communication technology frames and affects our communications and our lives.

One set of errors that almost everyone has seen -- even if they don't know it -- involve the failure of a very common process in computer programming called interpolation. While they look quite different, both of the following errors -- each taken from the Daily WTF's Error'd Series -- represent an error whose source would be obvious to most computer programmers.

The term interpolation, of course, is not unique to programmers. It is a much older term that was historically used to describe errors in hand-copied documents. Interpolation in a manuscript refers to text not written by an original author that was inserted over time -- either through nefarious adulteration or just by accident. As texts were copied by hand, this type of error ended up happening quite frequently! In its article on manuscript interpolation, Wikipedia describes one way that these errors occurred:

If a scribe made an error when copying a text and omitted some lines, he would have tended to include the omitted material in the margin. However, margin notes made by readers are present in almost all manuscripts. Therefore a different scribe seeking to produce a copy of the manuscript perhaps many years later could find it very difficult to determine whether a margin note was an omission made by the previous scribe (which should be included in the text), or simply a note made by a reader (which should be ignored or kept in the margin).

But while manuscript interpolation described a type of error, interpolation in computer programming refers to a type of text swapping that is fully intentional.

Computer interpolation happens when computers create customized and contextualized messages -- and they do so constantly. Whereas a newspaper or a book will be the same for each of its readers, computers create custom pages designed for each user -- you see these all the time as most messages that computers print are, in some way, dynamic. In many cases, these dynamic messages are created through a process called string or variable interpolation. For those who are unfamiliar with the process, an explanation of the errors above can reveal the details.

In the first example, the receipt read (emphasis mine):

You Saved a total of {@Total-Tkt-Discount} off list prices.

In fact, the computer is supposed to swap out the phrase {@Total-Tkt-Discount} for the value of a variable called Total-Tkt-Discount. The {@SOMETHING} syntax is one programming language's way of signifying to the computer, "take the variable called SOMETHING and use its value in this string instead of the everything between (and including) the curly braces." Of course, something didn't quite work right and the unprocessed -- or uninterpolated -- text was spit out instead. With this error, the computer program that is supposed to be computing our ticket price was revealed. Additionally, we have a glimpse into the program, its variable names, and even its programming language.

The second error from a (not very helpful) dialog box in Mozilla Firefox is a more complicated but fundamentally similar example (emphasis mine):

The file "#3" is of type #2 (#1), and #4 does not know how to handle this file type.

The numbers, in this case, reflect a series of variables. The dialog is supposed to be passed a list of values including the file name (#3), the file type (#2 and #1), and the name of the program that is trying to open it (#4). This list is supposed to be swapped in from placeholder values -- interpolated -- before any user sees it. Again, something went wrong here and a user was presented with the empty template that only the programmer and the program are ever supposed to see.

Nearly every message a computer or a computerized system presents us will be processed and interpolated in this way. In this sense, computer programs act as powerful intermediaries processing and displaying data. Perhaps more importantly, interpolation reveals just how limited computers' expression really is. These messages are not more complicated than simple fill-in-the-blank messages. Simple as they may be, they are entirely typical of the way that computers communicate with us.

From a user's perspective, it's easy to imagine sophisticated systems creating and presenting highly dynamic messages to us -- or to simply not think about it at all. In reality, few computer programs' ability to communicate with us is more sophisticated than a game of Mad Libs. The simplicity of these systems, the limitations that they impose on what computers can and can't say, and the limitations they place on we can and can't say with computers, are revealed through these simple, common, interpolation errors. To understand all of this, we need only recognize these errors and reflect on what they might reveal.

I recently wrote about spellcheckers and profanity. Of course, spellcheckers are the site of many other notable revealing errors.

One well-known class of errors is called the Cupertino Effect. The effect is named after an error caused by the fact that some early spellchecker wordlists contained the hyphenated co-operation but not cooperation (both are correct while the former is less common). The ultimate effect, due to the fact that spellchecking algorithms treat hyphenated words as separate words, was that several spellcheckers would suggest Cupertino as a substitute for the "misspelled" cooperation. As the lone suggestion, some people "corrected" cooperation to Cupertino in haste. The weblog Language Log noticed that quite a few people made the mistake in official documents from the UN, EU, NATO and more! These included the following examples found in real documents:

Within the GEIT BG the Cupertino with our Italian comrades proved to be very fruitful. (NATO Stabilisation Force, "Atlas raises the world," 14 May 2003)

Could you tell us how far such policy can go under the euro zone, and specifically where the limits of this Cupertino would be? (European Central Bank press conference, 3 Nov. 1998)

While Language Log authors were incredulous about the idea that there might be spellchecking dictionaries that contain the word Cupertino and not the unhyphenated co-operation, a reader sent in this screenshot from Microsoft Outlook Express circa 1996 using a Microsoft word list from Houghton Mifflin Company. Sure enough, they'd found the culprit.

Of course, the Cupertino effect is by no means limited to the word cooperation. The Oxford University Press also points out how the Cupertino Effect can rear its head when foreign words and proper nouns are involved. This lead to Reuters referring to Pakistan's Muttahida Quami Movement as the Muttonhead Quail Movement and to Rocky Mountain News naming Leucadia National as La-De-Da National instead. To top that off, Language Log found examples of confusion that led to discussion of copulation which make Cupertino look entirely excusable:

The Western Balkan countries confirmed their intention to further liberalise trade amongst each other. They requested that they be included in the pan-european system of diagonal copulation, which would benefit trade and economic development. (International Organization for Migration, Foreign Ministers Meeting, 22 Nov. 2004)

Of course, the Cupertino Effect is possible every time any spellchecking correction is suggested and the top result is incorrect. As a result, many common misspellings open the door to humorous errors. In a follow-up post, Language Log pointed out if one leaves the "i" off "identified", Microsoft Word 97 will give exactly one suggestion: denitrified which describes the the state of having nitrogen removed. That has led newspapers to report that, "Police denitrified the youths and seized the paintball guns." Which seems unlikely. Similarly, if you leave out the "c" from acquainted, spellcheckers frequently suggest aquatinted as a substitute. As the Oxford University Press blogs pointed out, folks who want to get aquatinted do not often want to be etched with nitric acid!

You can find parallels to the Cupertino effect in the Bucklame Effect I discussed previously. Many of the take-away lessons are the same. Spellcheckers make it easier to say some things correctly and place an additional cost on others. The effect our communication may be subtle but it's real. For example, a spelling mistake might be less forgivable in an era of spellcheckers. Like many communication technologies spellcheckers are normally invisible in the documents they create; nobody is reminded of spellcheckers by a perfectly spelled document. It is only through errors like the Cupertino effect that spellcheckers are revealed.

Further, these nonsensicle suggestions are made only because of the particular way that spellcheckers are built. Microsoft's Natural Language team is apparently working on "contextual" spellcheckers that will be smart enough to guess that you probably don't mean "Cupertino" when you mean cooperation. Of course other errors will remain and new ones will be introduced.

One of my favorite Japanese words is mojibake (文字化け) which literally translates as "character changing." The term is used to describe an error experienced frequently by computers users who read and write non-Latin scripts -- like Japanese. When readers of non-Latin scripts open a document, email, web page, or some other text, text is sometimes displayed mangled and unreadable. Japanese speakers refer to the resulting garbage as "mojibake." Here's a great example from the mojibake article in Wikipedia (the image is supposed to be in Japanese and to display the the Mojibake article itself).

The problem has been so widespread in Japanese that webpages would often place small images in the top corners of pages that say "mojibake." If a user cannot read the content on the page, the image links to pages which will try to fix the problem for the user.

From a more technical perspective, mojibake might be better described as, "incorrect character decoding," and it hints at a largely hidden part of the way our computers handle text that we usually take for granted.

Of course, computers don't understand Latin or Japanese characters. Instead they operate on bits and bytes -- ones and zeros that represent numbers. In order to input or or output text, computer scientists created mappings of letters and characters to numbers represented by bits and bytes. These mappings end up forming a sequence of characters or letters in a particular order often called a character set. To display two letters, a computers might ask for the fifth and tenth characters from a particular set. These character sets are codes; they map numbers (i.e., positions in the list) to letters just as Morse code maps dots and dashes to letters. Letters can be converted to numbers by a computer for storage and then converted back to be redisplayed. The process is called character encoding and decoding and it happens every time a computer inputs or outputs text.

While there may be some natural orderings, (e.g., A through Z), there are many ways to encode or map a set of letters and numbers (e.g., Should one put numbers before letters in the set? Should capital and lowercase letters be interspersed?). The most important computer character encoding is a ASCII which was first defined in 1963 and is the de facto standard for almost all modern computers. It defines 128 characters including the letters and numbers used in English. But ASCII says nothing about how one should encode accented characters in Latin, scientific symbols, or the characters in any other scripts -- they are simply not in the list of letters and numbers ASCII provides and no mapping is available. Users of ASCII can only use the characters in the set.

Left with computers unable to represent their languages, many non-English speakers have added to and improved on ASCII to create new encodings -- different mappings of bits and bytes to different sets of letters. Japanese text can frequently be found in encodings with obscure technical names likes EUC-JP, ISO-2022-JP, Shift_JIS, and UTF-8. It's not important to understand how they differ -- although I'll come back to this in a future blog post. It's merely important to realize that these each represents different ways to map a set of bits and bytes into letters, numbers, and punctuation.

For example The set of bytes that says "文字化け" (the word for "mojibake" in Japanese) encoded in UTF-8 would show up as "��絖�����" in EUC-JP, "������������" in ISO-2022-JP, and "文字化け" in ISO-8859-1. Each of the strings above is a valid decoding of identical data -- the same ones and zeros. But of course, only the first is correct and comprehensible by a human. Although the others are are displaying the same data, the data is unreadable by humans because it is decoded according to a different character sets mapping! This is mojibake.

For every scrap of text that a computer shows to or takes from a human, the computer needs to keep track of the encoding the data is in. Every web browser must know the encoding of the page it is receiving and the encoding that it will be displayed to the user in. If the data sent is a different format than the one that will be displayed, the computer must convert the text from one encoding to another. Although we don't notice it. Encoding metadata is passed along with almost every webpage we read and every email we send. Data is being converted between encodings millions of times each day. We don't even notice that text is encoded -- until it doesn't decode properly.

Mojibake makes this usually invisible process extremely visible and provides an opportunity to understand that our text is coded -- and how. Encoding introduces important limitations -- it limits our expression to the things that are listed in pre-defined character sets. Until the creation of an encoding called Unicode, one couldn't mix Japanese and Thai in the same document; while there were encodings for both, there were no character sets that encoded the letters for both. Apparently, in Chinese, there are older more obscure characters that no computers can encode yet. Computer users simply can't write these letters on computers. I've seen computers users in Ethiopia emailing each other in English because support for Amharic encodings at the time was so poor and uneven! All of these limits, and many more, are part and parcel of our character encoding systems. They become visible only when the usually invisible process of character encoding is thrust into view. Mojibake provides one such opportunity.

I caught another revealing crash screen over on The Daily WTF.

Although the folks at WTF did not draw attention to the fact, a close examination revealed that the dialog box on the crashed screen is rotated 90 degrees.

If you step back and look at the sign, it makes sense. The folks at Travelex wanted a tall poster-sized electronic bulletin board to display currency information and promotions. Unfortunately long screens are rare and LCD screens of usual sizes are extremely expensive. Travelex appears to have done the very sensible thing of taking a readily available and low-cost wide-screen LCD television, turned it on its side, and hooked it up to a computer.

Of course, screens have tops and bottoms. To display correctly on a sideways screen, a computer needs to be configured to display information sideways -- a non-trivial tasks on many systems. If you look a the Windows "Start" menu and task-bar along the right side (i.e., bottom) of the screen and the shape of the dialog, it seems that Travelex simply didn't bother. They used the screen to display images, or sequences of images and found it easy enough to simply rotate each of the images to be display 90 degrees as well. They simply showed a full-screen slide-show of sideways images on their sideways screen. And no user ever noticed until the system crashed.

It's a neat trick that many users might find useful but most would not think to do. Although they might after seeing this crash!

A close-up of the screen reveals even more.

Apparently, the dialog has popped up because the computer running the sign has a virus! Viruses are usually acquired through user interaction with a computer (e.g., opening a bad attachment) or through the Internet. It seems likely that the computer is plugged into the Internet -- perhaps the slide-show is updated automatically -- or that the image is being displayed from a computer used to do other things. In any case, it's a worrying "sign" from a financial services company.

I enjoyed seeing this image in an article in The Register.

The picture is a screen shot from Google Books viewing a page from a 1855 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine. The latex-clad fingers belong to one of the people whose job it is to scan the books for Google's book project.

Information technologies often hide the processes that bring us the information we interact with. Revealing errors give a picture of what these processes look like or involve. In an extremely literal way, this errors shows us just such a picture.

We can learn quite a lot from this image. For example, since the fingers are not pressed against glass, we might conclude that Google is not using a traditional flatbed scanner. Instead, it is likely that they are using a system similar to the one that the the Internet Archive has built that is designed specifically for scanning books.

But perhaps the most important thing that this error reveals is something we know, but often take for granted -- the human involved in the process.

The decision on where to automate a process, and where leave it up to a human, is sometimes a very complicated one. Human involvement in a process can prevent and catch many types of errors but can cause new ones. Both choices introduce risks and benefits. For example, an automated bank transaction system may allow human to catch obvious errors and to detect suspicious use that a computer without "common sense" might miss. On the other hand, a human banker might commit fraud to try to enrich themselves with others money -- something a machine would never do.

In our interaction with technological systems, we rarely reflect on the fact, and the ways, that the presence of humans in these areas is important to determining the behavior, quality, reliability, and the nature and degree of trust that we have in a technology.

In our interactions with complex processes through simple and abstract user interfaces, it is often only through errors -- distinctly human errors, if not usually quite as clearly human as this one -- that information workers' important presence is revealed.

Revealing errors are a way of looking at the fact that a technology's failure to deliver a message can tell us a lot. In this way, there's an intriguing analogy one can draw between revealing errors and censorship.

Censorship doesn't usually keep people from saying or writing something -- it just keeps them from communicating it. When censorship is effective, however, an audience doesn't realize that any speech ever occurred or that any censorship has happened -- they simply don't know something and, more importantly perhaps, don't know that they don't know. As with invisible technologies, a censored community might never realize their information and interaction with the world is being shaped by someone else's design.

I once was in an cafe with a large SMS/text message "board." Patrons could send an SMS to a particular number and it would be displayed on a flat-panel television mounted on the wall that everyone in the restaurant could read. I tested to see if there was a content filter and, sure enough, any message that contained a four-letter word was silently dropped; it simply never showed up on the screen. As the censored party, the failure of my message to show up on the board revealed a censor. Further testing and my success in posting messages with creatively spelled profanity, numbers instead of letters, and the construction of crude ASCII drawings revealed the censor as a piece of software with a blacklist of terms; no human charged with blocking profanity would have allowed "sh1t" through. Through the whole process, the other patrons in the cafe, remained none-the-wiser; they never realized that the blocked messages had been sent.

This desire to create barriers to profanity is widespread in communication technologies. For example, consider the number of times have you been prompted by a spellchecker to review and "fix" a swear word. Offensive as they may be, "fuck" and "shit" are correctly spelled English words. It seems highly unlikely that they were excluded from the spell-checker's wordlist because the compiler forgot them. They were excluded, quite simply, because their were deemed obscene or inappropriate. While intentional, these words' omission results in the false identification of all cursing as misspelling -- errors we've grown so accustomed to that they hardly seem like errors at all!

Now, unlike a book or website which more impressionable children might read, nobody can be expected to find a four-letter word while reading their spell-checking wordlist. These words are not included simply because our spell-checker makers think we shouldn't use them. The result is that every user who writes a four-letter-word must add that word, by hand, to their "personal" dictionary -- they must take explicit credit for using the term. The hope, perhaps, is that we'll be reminded to use a different, more acceptable word. Every time this happens, the paternalism of the wordlist compiler is revealed.

Connecting back to my recent post on predictive text, here's a very funny video of Armstrong and Miller lampooning the omission of four-letter words from predictive text databases that make it more difficult to input profanity onto mobile phones (e.g., are you sure you did not mean "shiv" and "ducking"?). You can also or download the video in OGG Theora if you have trouble watching it in Flash.

There's a great line in there: "Our job ... is to offer people not the words that they do use but the words that they should use."

Most of the errors described on this blog reveal the design of technical systems. While the errors in this case do not stem from technical decisions, they reveal a set of equally human choices. Perhaps more interestingly, the errors themselves are fully intended! The goal of swear-word omission is, in part, the moment of reflection that a revealing error introduces. In that moment, the censors hope, we might reflect on the "problems" in our coarse choice of language and consider communicating differently.

These technologies don't keep us from swearing any more than other technology designers can control our actions -- we usually have the option of using or designing different technologies. But every technology offers affordances that make certain things easier and others more difficult. This may or not be intended but it's always important. Through errors like those made by our prudish spell-checker and predictive text input systems, some of these affordances, and their sources, are revealed.

I recently heard that "Bucklame," apparently a nickname for New Zealand's largest city Auckland, has its source in a technical error that is dear to my heart. It seems that it stems from the fact that many mobile phones' predictive text input software will suggest the term "Bucklame" if a user tries to input "Auckland" -- the latter of which was apparently not in its list of valid words.

In my initial article on revealing errors, I wrote a little about the technology at the source of this error: Tegic's (now Nuance's) T9 predictive text technology which is a frequent way that users of mobile phones with normal keypad (9-12 keys) can quickly type in text messages with 50+ letters, numbers and symbols. Here is how I described the system:

Tegic’s popular T9 software allows users to type in words by pressing the number associated with each letter of each word in quick succession. T9 uses a database to pick the most likely word that maps to that sequence of numbers. While the system allows for quick input of words and phrases on a phone keypad, it also allows for the creation of new types of errors. A user trying to type me might accidentally write of because both words are mapped to the combination of 6 and 3 and because of is a more common word in English. T9 might confuse snow and pony while no human, and no other input method, would.

Mappings of number-sequences to words are based on database that offers words in order of relative frequency. These word frequency lists are based on a corpus of text in the target language pre-programmed into the phone. These corpora, at least initially, were not based on the words people use to communicate using SMS but one a more readily available data source (e.g., in emails or memos of in fiction). This leads to problems common to many systems that built on shaky probabilistic models: what is likely in one context may not be as likely in another. For example, while "but" is an extremely common English word, it might be much less common in SMS where more complex sentence structures are often eschewed due to economy of space (160 character messages) and laborious data-entry. The word "pony" might be more common than "snow" in some situations but it's certainly not in my usage!

Of course, proper nouns, of which there are many, are often excluded from these systems as well. Since the T9 system does not "know" the word "Auckland", the nonsensical compound-word "bucklame" seems to be an appropriate mapping for the same number-sequence. Apparently, people liked the error so much they kept using itand, with time perhaps, it stops being an error at all.

As users move to systems with keyboards like Blackberries, Treos, Sidekicks, and iPhones (which use a dual-mode system) these errors become impossible. As a result, the presence of these types of errors (e.g., a swapped "me" and "of") can tell communicators quite a lot about the type of device they are communicating with.

Errors reveal characteristics of the languages we use and the technologies we use to communicate them -- everything from scripts and letter forms (which while very fundamental to written communication are technologies nonetheless) to the computer software we use to create and communicate text.

I've spent the last few weeks in Japan. In the process, I've learned a bit about the Japanese language; no small part of this through errors. Here's one error that taught me quite a lot. The sentence is shown in Japanese and then followed by a translation into English:

今年から貝が胃に棲み始めました。
This year, a clam started living in my stomach.

Needless to say perhaps, this was an error. It was supposed to say:

今年から海外に住み始めました。
This year, I started living abroad.

When the sentences are translated into romaji (i.e., Japanese written in an Roman script) the similarity becomes much more clear to readers that don't understand Japanese:

Kotoshikara kaiga ini sumihajimemashita.
Kotoshikara kaigaini sumihajimemashita.

Kotoshikara means "since this year." Sumihajimemashita means, "has started living." The word kaigaini means "abroad" or "overseas." Kaiga ini (two words) means "clam in stomach." When written phonetically in romaji, the only difference in the two sentences lie in the introduction of a word-break in the middle of "kaigaini." Written out in Japanese, the sentences are quite different; even without understanding, one can see that more than a few of the characters in the sentences differ.

In English word spacing plays an essential role in making written language understandable. Japanese, however, is normally written without spaces between words.

This isn't a problem in Japanese because the Japanese script uses a combination of logograms -- called kanji -- and phonetic characters -- called hiragana and katakana or simply kana -- to delimit words and to describe structure. The result, to Japanese readers, is unambiguous. Phonetically and without spaces, the two sentences are identical in either kana or romaji:

ことしからかいがいにすみはじめました。
Kotoshikarakaigainisumihajimemashita.

In purely phonetic form, the sentence is ambiguous. Using kanji, as shown in the opening examples, this ambiguity is removed. While phonetically identical, "kaigaini" (abroad) and "kaiga ini" (clam in stomach) are very different when kanji is used; they are written "海外に" and "貝が胃に" respectively and are not easily confusable by Japanese readers.

This error, and many others like it, stems from the way that Japanese text is input into computers. Because there are more than 4,000 kanji in frequent use in Japan, there simply are not enough keys on a keyboard to input kanji directly. Instead, text in Japanese is input into computers phonetically (i.e., in kana) without spaces or explicit word boundaries. Once the kana is input, users then transform the phonetic representation of their sentence or phrase into a version using the appropriate kanji logograms. To do so, Japanese computer users employ special software that contains a database of mappings of kana to kanji. In the process, this software makes educated guesses about where word boundaries are. Usually, computers guess correctly. When computers get it wrong, users need to go back and tweak the conversion by hand or select from other options in a list. Sometimes, when users are in a rush, they use an incorrect kana to kanji conversion. It would be obvious to any Japanese computer users that this is precisely what happened in the sentence above.

This type of error has few parallels in English but is extremely common in Japanese writing. The effects, like this one, are often confusing or hilarious. For a Japanese reader, this error reveals the kana to kanji mapping system and the computer software that implements it -- nobody would make such a mistake with a pen and paper. For a person less familiar with Japanese, the error reveals a number of technical particularities about the Japanese writing system and, in the process, about the ways in Japanese differs from other languages they might speak.

Here is a photograph (and a closeup) of a bag of pretzels I was given on a cross-country plane trip today.

When I first saw "May 11 DC20 2008 00:12," I thought, "Wow! That's an extremely precise expiration date!" In transit over several time zones I then thought, what time zone do they mean?

Of course, expiration dates are ballpark figures that mark thresholds in the gradual process of product degradation. They are arbitrary, of course. It's not as if these pretzels will be great on May 10th and inedible two days later. Unless the pretzels have been set to self-destruct, the addition of an expiration hour and an expiration minute seems, well, unnecessary.

What's happened here is a design error. The label is, in fact, two different types of data printed in two separate columns. "May 11 2008" is the expiration date. "DC20 00:12" is the number of the machine or production line that produced the bag and the time at which the pretzels were made. Taken together, the information can be used by the producer, Synder's of Hanover, for quality control purposes to find out what machines, workers, and batches of supplies produced a particular bag of pretzels. In all likelihood, Snyder's prints these labels with a system that, for cost reasons, tries to minimize the amount of printed area on each bag.

For Snyder's employees familiar with the system, the labels are completely clear. But those of us not familiar with the system are left confused. Error can be thought of as the chasm between user expectations and technical interaction. Like most of the errors I discuss here, this flub represents failed communication and reveals the mediating technologies.

You have probably seen text produced by computers in fonts that are meant to look like they were typed on typewriters. The word "bookselling" caught my eye in a presentation by Lawrence Lessig. I've rendered a blown up version here in P22 Typewriter, the font he used in his presentation.

Here is "bookselling" rendered in another typewriter font, Old Typewriter, which is a similiar, but more extreme, example.

I was struck by the fact that while the font looked messy, it was consistently messy. The back-to-back o's and l's in "bookselling" are perfect copies of each other. No typewriter would have produced identically messy letters. However, because they are produced using a computer, the distortion is perfectly consistent between instances of a given letter.

To appreciate the revealing error, you must understand that the process of printing with inked pieces of metal type is messy. In letterpress printing, ink is rolled onto type using rollers or inkballs. In typewriters, letters are inked individually or the ink is pressed onto the page through an ink soaked ribbon. The result in both cases is letterforms that are slightly deformed due to irregular application of ink to type, globbing of the ink, the rough texture of the paper, and the splattering of ink across the page when the type hits the page. In part to prevent confusion due to these errors, typewriter typefaces employ exaggerated serifs to make each letter's form more distinct and resistant to distortion and noise.

However, on a computer screen or on a modern printer, letterforms are perfectly reproduced. Printers and screens build letters out of patterns of dots in tiny grids. The dots making up letters are precisely placed and microscopic. Screen don't splatter ink. In order to present an accurate typewriter font on screen or to be printed by a modern printer, font designers must also represent the types of errors that typewriters would make. You can see the messiness clearly in typewriter font samples.

However, just as the sloppiness of typewritten documents reveals the typewriters that produced it, the computer reproduction of that error introduces another revealing mistake. While most letterforms produced by a typewriter are malformed, they are uniquely malformed. Like snowflakes, each letter printed by a typewriter is subtly different for every other letter. The computer reveals itself by reproducing the same messiness of a letterform each time it is reproduced.

A typewriter might produce the first o; in fact, a real typewriter was probably the source of that letterform. But no typewriter would produce that o identically twice. That takes a computer. To be very convincing, a typewriter font would need to produce different versions of each character or to distort them randomly. I've been told that there are now fonts that do exactly this.

While the imperfections of the typewritten characters reveals a typewriter, the reproduction of these errors with perfect verisimilitude reveals a computer. In the process of trying to emulate the errors created by a typewriter, the computer commits a new error and reveals the whole process.

Blogger Jordan Wiens recently noticed a funny thing about the Apple website. When one tries to search for "applescript" (Apple's scripting and automation product) on Apple's website, they end up with this search result:

Until the issue is fixed, you can see for yourself by navigating to http://www.apple.com/search/?q=applescript.

On the search result page, the Apple search software seems to change the term "applescript" into "apple." A search for the term "apple" on the Apple website is, as one might imagine, not a particularly useful way to find information about Applescript. To most users, this error is confounding. To a trained eye, it reveals an overzealous security system attempting to prevent what's called cross-site scripting or XSS -- a way that spammers, phishers, and nefarious system-crackers can sneakily work around privacy and security systems in web browsers by exploiting two features of modern web browsers.

First, through the use of a programming language called Javascript, many web pages run small computer programs inside users' browsers. These Javascript programs allow for applications that are more responsive than would have been possible before (think Google Maps for a good example). Running random programs is risky, of course. To protect users and their privacy, web browsers limit Javascript programs in several ways. One common technique is to limit access granted to a Javascript program from a given website to information from the site the Javascript originated at. This security system is designed to bar one website's programs from accessing and relaying sensitive information, like login information or credit card numbers, from another website.

Second, a large number of applications allow input from users that is subsequently displayed on web pages. This can come in the form of edits and additions to Wikipedia pages, comments on forums, articles, or blogs, or even the fact that when you run a web search, the search terms are displayed back to you at the top of your page.

A security vulnerability, it turns out, lies in the combination of the two features. This vulnerability, XSS, happens when a nefarious user embeds small Javascript programs in input (e.g., a comment) which is run each time a page is subsequently viewed. Masquerading to the browser as a legitimate script created by the website creator, these programs can access sensitive information from the website stored on the user's computer (e.g., login information) and then send this information to the author of the script without the violated user's permission or knowledge.

When an attacker executes an XSS attack, they do so by trying to include Javascript in input that will be displayed to the user. This usually comes in the form of:

    <script>some code send to private information</script>

In HTML, the "<script>" and "</script>" tags signify to the web browser that the text between is a program to be run.

XSS has become a large problem. To combat and prevent it, web developers take great care to protect their users and their applications from attacks by blocking, removing, or disabling attempts to include programs in user input. One frequently employed method of doing so is to simply remove the "<script>" tags that cause programs to be run. Without the tags, malicious code may remain, but will never be executed on users' computers.

With this knowledge of XSS we can begin to understand the puzzling behavior of Apple's website. By trying several other searches, we can confirm that Apple's search engine is, in fact, removing all mentions of the term "script" from input to the site. The system is almost certainly designed to block XSS. While it is likely to succeed in doing so, the side effects, in the case of users searching for Applescript, are extremely inconvenient.

Through the error, Apple reveals their overzealous system designed to prevent XSS. Those who dig deeper to understand the source of this initially baffling behavior can gain new respect for implicit trust that that our browsers give to code on the websites we visit and the ways in which this trust can be abused.

In all likelihood, we have all been the victims of XSS attacks as users -- although most of us have been lucky enough to avoid divulging sensitive information in the process. Apple's error represents "collateral damage" in a a war fought between crackers, spammers, phishers on one side and web applications developers on the other. While we are rarely aware of it, this battle affects the way our web applications are designed and the features they do, and do not, include. We are, indirectly, affected by XSS even when we're not looking for information on Applescript. By revealing one anti-XSS security system, Apple's mistep points to that fact.

I found this beautiful and simple example of a revealing error featured in the fantastic (and very funny) Error'd series on Worse Than Failure:

My guess is that before most users start the Mozilla Thunderbird email client for the first time, they don't know that the software has a spam detection feature. That said, when the welcome message that automatically shows up in the inbox of every new Thunderbird user is prefixed by a notice that the message in question might be "junk,", users' ignorance on the matter will quickly be put to rest!

Of course, much more than the simple existence of the spam-flagging system is revealed by this error. With a little reflection, we can infer some of the criteria that Thunderbird must be using to sort spam or junk from legitimate email. Most mail systems, including Thunderbird use a variety of methods which, in aggregate, are used to determine the likelihood of a message being spam. Thunderbird's welcome message is not addressed directly to the user in question and it makes extensive use of rich-text HTML and images -- both common characteristics to spam.

Central to most modern spam-checkers is a statistical analysis of words used in the content of the email. Since spammers are trying to communicate a message, a prevalence of certain words and an absence of others is usually sufficient to sort out the junk. Sure enough, the Thunderbird welcome message is written using rather impersonal and marketing-speak terms that would be less likely in personal email (e.g., offering "product information").

From the perspective of the Thunderbird developers, the flagging of this message as spam seems to be in error. From the perspective of the user though, it is not quite as clear. The Thunderbird message is both unsolicited and commercial in nature -- essentially the definition of spam. In the "looks like a duck" sense, it uses words that make it "read" like spam.

While this simple error can teach Thunderbird users about the existence and the nature of their spam-checker, it might also teach the folks responsible for the Thunderbird welcome message something about the way the their messages might seem to their users.

Yesterday I received email from a hotel, confirming a reservation for a room. But it wasn't meant for me; it was meant for "Kathy Fogel" (whom I've never met), and was sent to "k.fogel@gmail.com".

Now, I do have the account "kfogel@gmail.com", but I'd never received email for "k.fogel" before. As I'd always thought "." was a significant character in email addresses, I didn't see how I could have gotten this mail. It turns out, though, that Google ignores "." when it's in the username portion of a gmail address. My friend Brian Fitzpatrick knew this already, and pointed me to Google's explanation. (I learned later that others have been suprised by this behavior too.)

So the error revealed a feature -- at least, I'm fairly sure Google would consider it a feature, although the exact motivation for it is still not clear to me. It might be a technical requirement caused by merging several legacy user databases, or it might simply be to prevent confusion among addresses that only differ by dots.

Anyway, I called the hotel, and eventually managed to make them understand that I had no idea who Kathy Fogel was, and that I'd accidentally gotten an email intended for her. They said they'd resend, and of course I said "Wait, no, it'll just come to me again!" But they swore they had a different email address on file for her, and indeed, I haven't gotten a second email.

Which raises another question: how did they send the mail to "k.fogel@gmail.com" in the first place? Clearly, Kathy Fogel cannot have that address, because Google will not allow any other "dot variants" of an address to be registered after the first. (Besides, if she did have that address, we'd be getting each other's mail all the time, and we're not.) It's also unlikely that she mistakenly given them that address herself, since they already had another address in place by the time I called.

A computer wouldn't substitute domain names in an email address like that. The only thing I can think of is that somehow, humans are, at least in some cases, intimately involved in sending out confirmation emails from DoubleTree hotels. I say "intimately" because this was no mere cut-and-paste mistake. Someone had to transcribe an email address by hand, and accidentally put "gmail.com" where the original said "yahoo.com" or "aol.com" or whatever.

I hope Kathy has a nice trip.

There are two free daily newspapers in Boston. The Boston Metro and the Boston Now. Both run crossword puzzles. The Now runs a puzzle edited by Stanley Newman. The Metro's puzzle is unattributed. When my friend Seth Schoen was in town for several days, he did several crossword puzzles in the Metro. He pointed out to me that a clue in the crossword was repeated on two consecutive days. The crosswords in the Metro, he concluded, were computer generated.

I picked up the Metro each day for several weeks and, sure enough, there was a large amount of overlap in answers. "ALSO" and NIL" were answers three times in two weeks. More suggestive, however, were the clues. In all three instances of each repeated answer, the clues were the same. The clue for "ALSO" was always, "Part of a.k.a.," while the clue for "NIL" was "Zilch." Capitalization and punctuation, even for the uncapitalized "a.k.a.", was consistent. Despite the fact that there was some variation in clues, I found some answers with different clues on different days. The high degree of consistency was undeniable.

Unassisted by a computer, no human editor would use the same clue for puzzles two days in a row. Frequent reuse of clues makes puzzles too easy for regular players and slight variation in clues is easy for a human puzzle editor to do. But even if the puzzles had been written in a different order than they were run in the paper, it is unlikely that a puzzle maker would repeatedly have come up with the same clues. The chance of capitalization, phrasing, and style resulting in identical clue text is even more improbable. Humans simply aren't that consistent. Computers are. Through the reuse of the clues, a computerized provenance is revealed.

Perhaps a little ignorant, I'd always assumed that crosswords were human generated. In fact, computer generated crosswords are widespread. There have been published papers on computer generation of crosswords since the 1970s and a New York Times article on the subject was published in 1996 when the practice was beginning to take off. Computers are able to generate puzzles quickly and in quantity and, as a result, are in common use in magazines and on websites.

There's resistance, however, from both human crossword editors and from solvers who find computer generated puzzles unsatisfying. Great crossword puzzles, they argue, showcase wit and creativity with language; answers are often tied together by themes and wordplay. Computers excel at taking a database of answers and creating grids that match up correctly; they are much faster and more accurate than humans. But as the error that revealed the computer to my friend Seth illustrates, computers are less adept at varying when or how they employ answers and clues in puzzles.

Quoted in an article in Tulsa World, Mark Lagasse, senior executive editor with Dell Magazines, justified his magazine's choice to fund the more laborious human methods of crossword production saying, "with themes and the better, larger puzzles, it's best to have a constructor working them out and filling in the diagrams. A lot of the words are a bit more dry and boring when done with computers." Ultimately, he concludes, computer-generated puzzles simply are not as entertaining as those made by humans.

I did the crossword puzzles in both the Now and the Metro for a couple weeks and I agree with Lagasse. The human generated puzzles are less repetitive, more interesting, and ultimately more satisfying. The computer generated puzzles almost never use word play and have no thematic connections between answers or clues. Of course, I did both Metro and Now puzzles in the past and I always preferred the Now puzzles and found them more fun. But I would have been hard-pressed to justify my feelings. It was not until Seth pointed out the repeated clues, an error, that I was able to understand why I felt the way I did.

I only recently stumbled across this old revealing error in the wonderful Doh, The Humanity! weblog:

In the days of newspapers and broadcast media, it was only likely for someone to read a news article on the day it was published. If the publication were weekly or monthly, it would be reasonable to expect readers got to it within the week or month. While libraries and others might keep archived versions, it was always clear to readers of archived material that their material -- and any relative dates mentioned therein -- were out of date.

Even today, news is still written primarily be consumed immediately and the vast majority of readers of an article will read it while it is fresh. But, websites have made archived material live on for months and years. While this is generally a good thing, it creates all sorts of problems for people who use relative dates in articles. The point of reference -- today -- becomes unstable. As a result, if an entertainment reporter describes a show as happening, "next Tuesday," it might appear to refer to any number of incorrect Tuesdays depending on when someone has stumbled across the archived version.

News companies have responded by converting relative dates into absolute ones. No doubt, this was often done by editors but today is also done by computer programs. These programs parse each news story looking for relative dates. When they find one, they compute the corresponding absolute date from the relative one, and add it into the text of the article in a parenthetical aside.

Most people, including myself, never knew or even imagined that articles were being parsed like this until the system screwed up as it did in the screenshot above. No human editor would have thought to provide an absolute date for "yesterday" in the phrase, "it may seem like only yesterday." With this misstep, the script at work is revealed. With the mistakes, the program's previous work -- hopefully more accurate and less noticeable in old articles -- becomes visible as well. Since seeing this image, I've noticed these date absolutefiers at work everywhere.

When I told a friend about this project, she (let's call her Alice) told me a story.

Alice lives a major city with fairly good cell coverage, except for a long tunnel that goes underground. Alice often gets calls from her mom. Alice likes her mom, of course, no problems there, but, as we all do, finds long phone calls with her a bit trying. So often when she's on the phone with her mom, Alice will say "Oops, sorry mom, got to go into the tunnel now!" Even when she's not going into the tunnel.

This is a lie that new technology makes possible. But it only makes it possible because there are known failures in the technology. If we only had old landline phones, you'd never be able to claim such a thing -- landline phones don't randomly stop working. And if we had perfect cell coverage, it similarly wouldn't make sense. But since the technology only half-works, the unfinished space can be used for very human forms of deception.

Welcome to the Revealing Errors weblog. Our goal is to reveal errors that reveal the technology around us to learn how technology affects our lives.

Introduction

In The World Is Not a Desktop, Marc Weisner, the principal scientist and manager of the computer science laboratory at Xerox PARC, stated that, “a good tool is an invisible tool.” Weisner cited eyeglasses as an ideal technology because with spectacles, he argued, “you look at the world, not the eyeglasses.” Through repetition, and by design, technologies blend into our lives. While technologies, and communications technologies in particular, have a powerful mediating impact, many of the most pervasive effects are taken for granted by most users. When technology works smoothly, its nature and effects are invisible. But technologies do not always work smoothly. A tiny fracture or a smudge on a lens renders glasses quite visible to the wearer.

The Microsoft Windows “Blue Screen of Death” on subway in Seoul.

Anyone who has seen a famous “Blue Screen of Death”—the iconic signal of a Microsoft Windows crash—on a public screen or terminal knows how errors can thrust the technical details of previously invisible systems into view. Nobody knows that their ATM runs Windows until the system crashes. Of course, the operating system chosen for a sign or bank machine has important implications for its users. Windows, or an alternative operating system, creates affordances and imposes limitations. Faced with a crashed ATM, a consumer might ask herself if, with its rampant viruses and security holes, she should really trust an ATM running Windows?

Technologies make previously impossible actions possible and many actions easier. In the process, they frame and constrain possible actions. They mediate. Communication technologies allow users to communicate in new ways but constrain communication in the process. In a very fundamental way, communication technologies define what their users can say, to whom they say it, and how they can say it—and what, to whom, and how they cannot.

Technology activists, like those at the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), understand the power, importance, and limitations of technology and technological mediation. Largely constituted by technical members, both organisations, like humanist scholars studying technology, have struggled to communicate their messages to a less-technical public. Before one can argue for the importance of individual control over who owns technology, as both FSF and EFF do, an audience must first appreciate the power and effect that their technology and its designers have. To understand the power that technology has on its users, users must first see the technology in question. Most users do not.

Errors are under-appreciated and under-utilised in their ability to reveal technology around us. By painting a picture of how certain technologies facilitate certain mistakes, one can better show how technology mediates. By revealing errors, scholars and activists can reveal previously invisible technologies and their effects more generally. Errors can reveal technology—and its power and can do so in ways that users of technologies confront daily and understand intimately.

About Us

This weblog is maintained by Benjamin Mako Hill, a free/open source technology activist, developer and consultant. This project is done as part of a Fellowship at the MIT Center for Future Civic Media.

Contributions, both in terms of suggestions or pointers to revealing errors or in the form of full articles is graciously accepted. Please email mako@atdot.cc with any such suggestions.