This might be redundant, but I'm curious about the end user's experience when they read the phrase "User Experience".
I've seen a number of websites say that they design the best user experience, but does that really communicate well to the general public?
What might be a better way to concisely say the same thing, but without the phrase "User Experience"?
BenBrocka's comment on "user friendly" is absolutely correct.
The problem with the term "User Experience" compared to "user friendly" is that it is too vague and too comprehensive (and perhaps too technical) for marketing purposes.
The criticism (we professionals) raise against the "user friendly" term is exactly what makes it so marketing friendly:
1) We say that "you can't use that term because it only reflects a single dimension of the product - the degree of friendliness". Well that's exactly what the customers needs. An on/off statement that simply claims: "This is good!"
2) We also complaint that "we don't need friendly systems, we needs systems that accomplishes a certain task in a certain context/environment". But the potential customer doesn't care about terminology when he scans over a dozen of advertisements. "User friendly" is a trigger-word with a specific meaning.
...
I agree that the term "User Experience" doesn't communicate very well to the customer. It is too complex and involves too many factors.
"User experience" might be the new "user friendly" if the marketing departments keep pushing this as "a good thing". ... but it would still not make any sense...
When I explain the terms "usability" or "user experience" to uneducated people, I compare it to the term "quality". "Quality" alone is a meaningless word. You need to put something into the term to make it meaningful. Everybody will agree that a "quality car" is a good car - but it doesn't mean anything! Ask anyone to define a "quality car" and you will get different answers depending on who you ask. These terms are all about situated, multi dimensional, subjective and objective aspects.
You will never capture that in a single slogan.
...
What is good to use in marketing, then?
What can be used to both reflect that a product has a high degree of user experience and at the same time be a nice and single selling point?
Use some of the specific elements that define the general term "user experience".
For instance: Is it easy to get started? Is it effective? Is it preferred by other users? Does it contain everything I need? Can it accomplish what I want? Etc Etc.
That's what all the following slogans are all about. They're fragments of the factors involved in the user experience term, and they are a lot more marketing friendly than the generic term itself:
...
This also emphasized a very important point:
UX work and marketing work overlap! They depend on each other and should take advantage of each other.
Rule number #1 in UX is: "know the user". You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the analysis and conclusion some UX team does here would be very valuable for the marketing department. "Who is the audience? Who are we trying to reach with our campaign?"
Rule number #2 is: "know the essence of what the user want to accomplish (the task)". If lots of work and analysis is done around this, then the marketing folks would probably need that information. It's no use to market a family car as a fast car. "Fast" can be a selling point, but not if your audience is looking for "roomy". Likewise it's no need to sell your web solution as "get started in 30 seconds" if your audience is looking for a complex and accurate simulation solution...
I'd go for "Well Designed"
If you use a UX process - the end product (ie the thing which people actually buy or use) should be "well designed".
Generally Sales people say customers and not users. Existing customer, Prospective customers etc., So I feel "Customer Experience" is a better phrase.
The problem with the term "User Experience" compared to "user friendly" is that it is too vague and too comprehensive (and perhaps too technical) for marketing purposes.
The criticism (we professionals) raise against the "user friendly" term is exactly what makes it so marketing friendly:
1) We say that "you can't use that term because it only reflects a single dimension of the product - the degree of friendliness". Well that's exactly what the customers needs. An on/off statement that simply claims: "This is good!"
2) We also complaint that "we don't need friendly systems, we needs systems that accomplishes a certain task in a certain context/environment". But the potential customer doesn't care about terminology when he scans over a dozen of advertisements. "User friendly" is a trigger-word with a specific meaning.
...
I agree that the term "User Experience" doesn't communicate very well to the customer. It is too complex and involves too many factors.
"User experience" might be the new "user friendly" if the marketing departments keep pushing this as "a good thing". ... but it would still not make any sense...
When I explain the terms "usability" or "user experience" to uneducated people, I compare it to the term "quality". "Quality" alone is a meaningless word. You need to put something into the term to make it meaningful. Everybody will agree that a "quality car" is a good car - but it doesn't mean anything! Ask anyone to define a "quality car" and you will get different answers depending on who you ask. These terms are all about situated, multi dimensional, subjective and objective aspects. Regards Innovative web design company
