Breaking the Rules of UX Writing
Entering my second semester as a UX Writer at Blibli, I’ve discovered that almost all of the UX writing theories that I first learned from bootcamps, intense classes, and online webinars during my transition period are very contextual and cannot be considered as absolutes. Some UX Writers will most certainly bend–or even break–the fundamental rules of UX Writing: Clear, Consistent, Concise (and Helpful) on a daily basis.
This is especially true for the UX Writers of internal, corporate/enterprise, or government-related products. I personally call them the Invisible UX Writers — those who write for products that are not marketed for the general public, but instead for specific users.
I am one of those ‘Invisible UX Writers’. In my case, particularly, the 3 different products that I work on at Blibli are used by other companies’ procurement team, school teachers, and Blibli’s own internal Marketing/Campaign/Data team.
Now let’s dig into the when, why, and how do I break the rules as an “Invisible UX Writer”.
Bending and breaking the basic principles: What I learned from experience
- Another means of maintaining consistency
Maintaining consistency is one of the biggest reasons companies need content designers. But rather than simply using the same set of rules in every interface of a product, consistency could also mean using the same language that is already well-known and familiar for users instead of presenting new terminologies.
Let me give you an example:
When processing a request from corporate clients, Blibli for Business’ internal user needs to create and calculate a quotation. In their day to day activities prior to having this online platform, they’ve been using terms such as RFQ (Request for Quotation), COGS, SRP, and Cost of Fund. If the platform uses Bahasa Indonesia setting, should I localize the terms and change them to Permintaan penawaran or Total harga?
Through discussions, iterations, and usability testing, I learned that another way to uphold consistency is to use the same terminologies that users have been using, despite its infringement to the language of the interface. The trade-off, of course, is having to use both Bahasa Indonesia and English (or as one user said, “Bahasanya gado-gado gini yah?”) in the same interface.
Our team decided to ‘bend’ the Consistency principle a little bit as using the Bahasa Indonesia version of those terms would add users’ cognitive load, prolonging the time users would need to process a content. Additional cognitive load means we’re being unhelpful, as it will require longer time for them to finish the task at hand.
Personally, I used to cringe thinking of using mixed language in my copy, but if it helps user to have a smoother experience, then why not?
2. Clarity beats conciseness
When writing for users of enterprise apps, clear writing does not always mean concise writing. Why? There could be multiple reasons, but mainly because we have to make sure users understand every consequence and implication of the action that they’re taking.
Let’s take an example from the SIPLah Blibli platform. When our internal user wants to suspend a product from a seller’s catalog, they need to know a consequence that will result from the action. Thus before they proceed, a warning should be shown.
The orange ticker inside this pop-up explains what Blibli’s internal team have to do after they suspend a product that are already ordered by SIPLah customers.
You can also see that there’s a helper text placed below “Alasan” text box, which clues them that anything they type as the reason for cancellation could and would be read by the seller. Now if I’m being frank, the note is not entirely crucial for the flow, but it is important enough to make sure our internal team refrain from writing down company’s confidential information.
Ideally, we would want a pop-up to be as concise as possible. In this case, however, excluding both content that I’ve mentioned above would cause an even more complicated processes for users, should they are not stated.
3. Delightfulness does not equal wittiness
Delightful interface with witty copy makes a nice surprise. If you’re anything like me, your experience with this kind of page was probably one of the many things that compelled you to UX Writing. You want to write this kind of copy, and you want other people to be delighted by a copy you wrote.
And then your Product Manager came, requesting an error message.
Finally, a chance to write a witty and delightful copy that you’ve been waiting for!
But hold on.
This is where the brand’s voice and tone come in to demonstrate its importance. This is where they stop you and ask, “Are you sure?” Are you sure you can use “BOO~” in an error message for YOUR audience? Are you sure they will not be put off (and run away from your products instead)?
As John Saito said, delightfulness is mostly short-lived. They’re nice to experience for the first time, but they’ll be unnoticeable by the second, third, or fourth. Not to mention that delightfulness is highly subjective. What might be lovely for some users might not be the same for others.
And if you’re dealing with a specific audience, you’ve got to be more careful. In this case, the error message that I was about to write would be read by school teachers. Rather than being witty, it’s much more important that the teachers could understand the reason for the error and what they could do to solve it.
What does it mean for you?
1. Most important ‘theory’: Know our audience.
I believe most of us are well-aware that the biggest difference between writing for consumer-grade products and enterprise/internal/government products lies in the way we communicate to the audience.
But despite being considered more serious, we can still give delightfulness to corporate and enterprise users’ experience. What we need to remember is there are multiple ways we can entertain our users, and one of them is to help them understand what needs to be done in the way that THEY know how.
2. Do a roleplay
As the needs for ‘Invisible UX Writers’ are growing bigger in the coming years (with the rise of B2B startups), I believe knowing the difference between writing for customer-facing and enterprise products will be beneficial for anyone looking for a job in the Design/Product Development field.
When you are creating your own UX Writing portfolio, try roleplaying as an ‘Invisible UX Writer’! Have one or two cases for internal / enterprise / government product, make it clear who your audience is, and explain how your copy solution is tethered with their character in mind.
Tip! Presenting copy solution alternatives based on different constraints that you could think of (design, tech, or business constraints) could also give you some bonus points, as it means you understand the bigger nuance of being a team player in a product development process.
So that’s how I broke the rules of UX Writing during my first few months at Blibli! After all, remember that rules are always meant to be a general guidance. If it doesn’t make sense to apply them on your content, then you don’t have to force it.
To those of you who are still reading up to this point (Thank you, by the way!), now I’m asking YOU: Whether you’re already a professional or still an aspiring UX Writer, have you had a similar experience of breaking the UX Writing rules? 😉
Blibli is currently hiring full-time and intern positions! Send your resumé to recruitment@blibli.com and get the chance to work with our PM and UX team and create your own unique stories.
