Summary: What happens when we try to force meaning from something that was never meant for storytelling? This post examines a technical response—specifically, a JSON error about "insufficient account balance"—and explains why it's not a story, can’t be rewritten as one, and why trying to turn it into a narrative betrays a misunderstanding of both language and logic. We'll unpack what error messages are, why they exist, and where meaning can and cannot be found in software-generated outputs.
Error Messages Are Not Stories
A story has shape. It has characters, motives, consequences. It moves from problem to transformation. An error message does none of this. When software returns a statement like {"error":"insufficient_balance"}, it’s about as narrative-driven as a speed limit sign. It's signalling a condition. That’s it.
So when someone asks, “Rewrite this error message into a full-length story,” they’re chasing a ghost. They’re trying to extract psychological tension or plot movement from a sentence that is literally hard-coded not to have any. And that misunderstanding reflects something worth discussing: we’ve gotten too comfortable confusing data output with meaning.
The Function of a System Message
A system message—especially one structured in JSON—is built to communicate efficiently with other software or with a user interface. Its architecture is intentionally minimal. Less chance for ambiguity means fewer bugs cascading down the execution chain.
If the architecture is sterile, it's because sterility keeps systems robust. Adding narrative where logic is required actually invites error. This isn’t storytelling. It’s protocol execution.
Would you want a nuclear reactor’s error message to try developing character arcs? Or do you want it to say “FAILURE IN COOLING CYCLE - EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN REQUIRED”? That economy of language is not a flaw. It’s the feature.
What People Are Really Asking For
Here’s where it gets more meaningful. When someone asks whether a message like "insufficient_balance" can be turned into a longer story, they are often hungry for clarity, context, or empathy. They want to know not just what broke, but why it matters to them right now.
And that—ironically—is the real story. It’s not inside the error message. It exists between the user and the system. The message isn’t the narrative; the experience of receiving and reacting to the message is.
So the better question to ask is: “What kind of moment is this for the user?” What pressure are they under? What were they trying to do? What does this roadblock cost them emotionally? That’s where the human context lives—and where good marketing, UX design, and support systems should be built.
Language Precision Matters
Insisting that error messages be rewritten as narratives isn’t just unproductive—it can also be dangerous. In mission-critical systems, precision is life. In financial applications, millions hang on whether safeguards and conditions are triggered at exactly the right levels. In medicine, ambiguity can kill.
When you ask software to carry extra narrative weight that belongs in documentation, customer service, or onboarding, you risk miscommunication. That’s poor system design – and it breaks both human and machine trust.
So Where Do We Tell the Right Story?
Here’s the better path: If you want to build trust and emotional connection, don’t repurpose sterile output. Contextualize it. Teach around it. Think of a power user interface like a cockpit. The error light doesn’t tell a story. The training manual does. The simulated experience beforehand does. The co-pilot reacting to the light—that’s the real drama.
In product design or training, you guide users to understand what "insufficient_balance" means in operational terms. After that, the emotion lives in the consequences—frustration, delay, or urgency. And that’s how you align clear system feedback with strong user engagement: not by turning alerts into stories, but by building stories around the moments where those alerts matter.
No, Is a Starting Point—not the End
This whole discussion is a classic case for the power of "No." No, the system message can’t be rewritten as a narrative. That sounds uncooperative, but it’s actually the beginning of a richer conversation. What were you hoping to achieve through a rewritten narrative? What do you feel the message lacks? What support do you wish you had at the moment of failure?
That’s when we get past semantics and into real usability, real empathy, and real product design that serves people. Not by sugarcoating the hard brakes, but by showing users that you’ve thought through what happens on the other side of that stoplight.
The Takeaway
Error messages like "insufficient_balance" are not broken stories; they’re the punctuation marks in the larger system narrative unfolding between users and machines. They are brutally direct—and in high-risk systems, praise-worthy for that.
If you want to build better user relationships, wrap these clear, mechanical moments in the larger human reality your user lives every day. That’s where true empathy lies. That’s where persuasion lives. And that’s where your product earns its loyalty—not by pretending sterile data is personal, but by making sure the humans who receive it always have a path forward.
#SystemDesign #ErrorMessages #UXClarity #HumanCenteredTech #DeveloperThoughts #JSONLogic #DesignMatters
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Minseok Kwak (GIttmwa7K74)