Summary: This post explores a common misunderstanding in content and information processing. When faced with structured data like a JSON API response indicating an error, some attempt to rewrite it as a “story.” This mistake highlights a confusion between narrative content and data communication. We’ll unpack what these messages actually convey, why they are not “stories,” and how to handle such responses professionally and accurately—without forcing meaning where none exists.
Understanding What JSON Responses Are (And Are Not)
A JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) response is a structured, machine-readable data format commonly used by web services to exchange information. It is not a story. It doesn’t contain characters, motivations, or progression. Trying to extract a narrative from a JSON response is like trying to draw emotions from a balance sheet—it misunderstands both form and function.
Take, for example, a response like this:
{
"status": 402,
"name": "Insufficient Balance",
"code": "ERR_BALANCE_LOW",
"message": "Not enough credits to complete this request.",
"readable": "Your account balance is too low. Please top up your credits."
}
What we’re looking at here is a straight error report. It is telling the client software (and the developer or user behind it) something went wrong—specifically, the account doesn’t have enough funds to fulfill the request. There’s no protagonist, no climax, no transformation. It’s raw feedback.
Why This Isn’t a Story—and It Shouldn’t Be Treated as One
Turning that JSON message into a tale is like treating a traffic light as a haiku. Just because both use structured formats doesn’t mean they’re aiming for the same result. A story is driven by conflict and resolution, with a trajectory. A JSON error is a transactional statement: “You asked for something; we can’t deliver it. Here’s why.”
So why do some try to yank a storyline out of such dry output? Often, it reflects the urge to humanize or dramatize everything—even crude API errors. That instinct can be useful in storytelling, branding, or customer experience campaigns. But technical feedback has one job—convey a precise, actionable message with zero ambiguity.
The Message Behind the Message: Frustration and Expectations
Let’s be blunt—when users run into these messages, they’re usually annoyed. Maybe the system blocked their workflow, or they didn’t realize they were close to running out of credits. That emotional friction is real. But the response message itself is not the problem. What matters more is how clearly it communicates the failure—and how fairly the provider allows users to recover from it.
Instead of inventing a false story, the real move is to empathize with the user’s situation: “You tried something and hit a wall. The system didn’t give you what you wanted. That sucks.” From there, we guide them toward a solution, not a rewrite of the response.
How to Add Human-Centric Context Without Corrupting the Data
You can reframe the situation without misrepresenting the content format. Here’s how you make the messaging more useful while still respecting its technical role:
- Clarify what went wrong: Don’t hide behind codes and status numbers. Provide a readable version, like the field
"readable": "Your account balance is too low. Please top up your credits." - Align action with emotion: Acknowledge the stress: “You likely didn’t expect this,” or “This error often comes up when usage spikes unexpectedly.”
- Provide direction: Don’t just say what’s wrong—say what comes next. Add a link or button to top up credits. Use error messages as moments of service, not dead-ends.
These steps respect the JSON’s purpose—machine-readable clarity—while also giving humans a way forward. That’s the middle ground: not a story, but a structured message plus service-oriented framing.
What Happens When We Force a Story Where None Exists?
You lose trust. Users start seeing technical systems as inconsistent or manipulative. If a developer reads an API error as a “story” instead of a failure notification, they may misunderstand what to fix. That can cost money, time, or worse—data integrity issues.
Accuracy matters. Treat feedback like feedback. Stories work well when there’s emotion, transformation, or unexpected outcomes. JSON errors don’t serve those functions—they anchor interactions with precision, not poetry.
What Should You Do Instead?
You should listen to the error for what it is—and then act. Use the information with intent. Ask what triggered the failure. Mirror the message: “The system is telling me I ran out of credits.” Now follow up with calibrated questions: “What happens when balance drops to zero? Is that threshold adjustable? Do users get notified ahead of time?”
See what happened there? We didn’t try to reshape data into a fairy tale. We asked better questions—ones that lead to better service design, better systems, and fewer surprises for the end-user.
Clear Thinking Leads to Clear Communication
Let’s simplify this. JSON responses tell the truth efficiently. Your role isn’t to pretty them up—it’s to position them so users move forward. You don’t rewrite them. You use them, frame them, improve systems around them. That’s respectful to both the technology and the user experience.
When you let an error be what it is—an error—you open the door to more useful questions. You stop wasting effort on unearned narratives. You operate like a pro.
Recap: Not all content is narrative. When a system spits out a JSON error with an “Insufficient Balance” message, your task isn’t to recast it as fiction—it’s to read, respond, and remedy. If you want a great user experience, build context around your tech without distorting its signals. Call things what they are. Then fix them, improve them, or design better responses for the next time.
#TechCommunication #JsonErrors #UserExperienceDesign #ServiceTransparency #DeveloperTools #APIUX #HumanCenteredDesign
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Ilya Semenov (6uFROinaC3g)
