Maybe I’m just getting older—okay, let’s avoid saying “too experienced”—but I’m exhausted by the endless buzzwords, jargon, and phrases being thrown around in design and business circles.
Here are a few of the ones I hear all too often:Brand Experience / Expectation / Design
And then, of course, there’s the never-ending list of abbreviations:CI: Corporate Identity
One simple question: does throwing around these words, phrases, or acronyms actually help you do your job better? Does it help sell services?
Even with the growing focus on user experience (UX), we still can’t seem to agree on its nature or scope. This lack of consensus might actually be fueling the endless explosion of new “experience” terms. But is this proliferation of labels really helpful?
Most designers would agree that UX is dynamic, context-dependent, and subjective. With that in mind, perhaps we should define user experience as something deeply individual—emerging from interactions with a product, system, service, or even another person.
Regardless of these labels, we, as designers, hold a unique responsibility. We’re tasked not only with defining design problems from multiple perspectives but also with delivering solutions that improve upon what came before. Whether we succeed or fail, we wield influence over people’s behaviors—an influence that can have ethical or emotional consequences.
My approach to good design—whether for cities and buildings in the past or digital and virtual products today—has always revolved around three core principles:
While I still call myself a “user-experience designer,” it’s less because I’m attached to the term and more because there’s no better, universally understood job title. Years ago, I came across the term “Utility and Usability Designer” (UUD), but it never gained traction.
Here are a few of the ones I hear all too often:Brand Experience / Expectation / Design
- Buyer Experience / Expectation / Design
- Client-grade Experience / Expectation / Design
- Consumer-grade Experience / Expectation / Design
- Customer Experience / Expectation / Design
- Enterprise-grade Experience / Expectation / Design
- Human Experience / Expectation / Design
- Product Experience / Expectation / Design
- Prosumer Experience / Expectation / Design
- Service Experience / Expectation / Design
- User Experience / Expectation / Design
And then, of course, there’s the never-ending list of abbreviations:CI: Corporate Identity
- CD: Corporate Design
- CMF: Color, Material, Finish
- DFM: Design for Manufacturing
- DFX: Design for Excellence
- DX: Design Experience
- GUI: Graphical User Interface
- HCI: Human-Computer Interaction
- ID: Industrial Design
- IA: Information Architecture
- IXD: Interaction Design
- RWD: Responsive Web Design
- UI: User Interface
- UCD: User-Centered Design
- VD: Visual Design
- VR: Virtual Reality
- AR: Augmented Reality
- XR: Extended Reality
- XD: Experience Design
One simple question: does throwing around these words, phrases, or acronyms actually help you do your job better? Does it help sell services?
Buzzword Overload
Can we really design separately for all these so-called “experiences” or “expectations”? Clearly not. These terms often overlap, become convoluted, or are narrowly defined in ways that create more confusion than clarity. They’re often more helpful for selling and charging for another deliverable than for effective communication or problem-solving.Even with the growing focus on user experience (UX), we still can’t seem to agree on its nature or scope. This lack of consensus might actually be fueling the endless explosion of new “experience” terms. But is this proliferation of labels really helpful?
Most designers would agree that UX is dynamic, context-dependent, and subjective. With that in mind, perhaps we should define user experience as something deeply individual—emerging from interactions with a product, system, service, or even another person.
Regardless of these labels, we, as designers, hold a unique responsibility. We’re tasked not only with defining design problems from multiple perspectives but also with delivering solutions that improve upon what came before. Whether we succeed or fail, we wield influence over people’s behaviors—an influence that can have ethical or emotional consequences.
Design is a Balancing Act
When we design, we juggle countless factors, trying to harmonize them into a cohesive solution. And while I admit that I occasionally use these buzzwords myself, it’s rarely because they improve the product—it’s more to cater to what I jokingly call Listener Experience.My approach to good design—whether for cities and buildings in the past or digital and virtual products today—has always revolved around three core principles:
- Utility
The design must serve a purpose. As the Oxford Dictionary defines it, utility is “the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.” - Usability
The ISO 9241-11 defines usability as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” Without usability, utility often falls short - Desirability
It’s hard to create desirability without usability and utility. The product must be crafted in such a way that people want to engage with it.
What is Experience Design, Really?
In my understanding, experience design (XD) encompasses every aspect of a user’s interaction with a product, service, or company—both online and offline. It involves carefully coordinating all the elements of interaction: layout, visual design, text, brand, sound, and functionality. The ultimate goal is to create the best possible interaction for users, no matter who those users are:- Buyers
- Consumers
- Customers
- Employees
- Operators
- Agents
- Users
- Or some other alphabet soup label.
While I still call myself a “user-experience designer,” it’s less because I’m attached to the term and more because there’s no better, universally understood job title. Years ago, I came across the term “Utility and Usability Designer” (UUD), but it never gained traction.
The Next Level of Buzzwords: Parody as a Mirror
I’d like to share a parody video that takes this buzzword craze to the extreme: ExFEARience Design. The concept is simple and absurd—brands deliberately scaring their customers for emotional impact. While the video is hilarious, you have to wonder if there truly are marketers or designers out there who might take something like that seriously!So, Do We Need All These Words?
To conclude:- Does any of these buzzwords, phrases, or job titles actually help you do your job better?
- Do we really need an ever-expanding list of “experience” labels?
Let’s not lose sight of what truly matters: crafting meaningful, usable, and desirable experiences for real people — no matter what we call them.
Comments
Post a Comment