There are plenty of examples of bad ux. Sometimes it accounts for a significant proportion of the entire interaction and sometimes it's a small but glaringly obvious detail that should be obvious to anyone.
Every now and then, there's an element of bad ux from a company that should know better.
So how does this happen, and how could it have been avoided?
The thing that concerns me is that even when there's clearly a decent budget and a reputation at stake, these things still get through the net and the users little bucket of goodwill gets somewhat emptier.
Is there not a process that is a bad ux catch-all? Or is user experience essentially a case of doing the best we can but knowing that we not infallible?
I like metaphors: So For example, if you consider different processes to be like fisherman's nets and fish to be the bits of bad ux. The nets can be widespread but with large holes, or they can be smaller but very finely meshed so as not to let even the smallest fish through. What are the combination of processes that cast the nets in such a way to be both broad enough and finely meshed enough not to allow any bad ux through at any point?
I have a suspicion that part of the answer maybe something like for a company to be prepared to spend at least 20% of a total annual budget on the CX of which UX is a part of that, instead of the measly sums that some companies spend, but I'd like to see what drops out of asking this question.