Why you’re failing to save the world with your inconsistent copy
Adam Stokes | Senior Content Designer at Purplebricks
Though it almost sounds so obvious that it goes without saying, consistency in language usage across a user journey is important. Yet it’s something that many experiences can fail to implement effectively, often without even realising. That’s why it’s good to not only understand how inconsistencies can occur, but also the underlying adverse effects that inconsistent language can have on user experience, (spoiler: you’re not quite ending the world as we know it).
Language needs to be consistent and consciously chosen wherever it sits — but not least when it’s present as part of a call-to-action. This is the most direct form of language used in a customer facing environment, one of the few places we are actively addressing a user with imperative statements asking them to do something — so why is it something so many companies get wrong?
Let’s take an example.
Sign in, sign up, log in, login
The subtle intricacies within the language used for both submitting credentials and the registration process means that without the right explanation — it can be a bit of a minefield, one that many don’t even know they’re walking into.
A. Sign in
B. Sign up
The difference between A and B may look simple, but they are used interchangeably all too often. To sign in denotes, in a digital experience at least, that you already have the credentials needed to access a gated experience. You wouldn’t ask someone to enter somewhere of their own free will if you knew they didn’t have the key needed to get in. That’s where sign up comes in.
To sign up denotes the submission of information for the first time, much like you would sign up for an event in the real world by providing your details in order to do so. It is here that the difference lies, which is why in a grammatically correct and best practice user experience world, sign in is used for existing customers, and sign up is used for first time visitors.
But the two should never coexist.
This is where log terminology comes in, itself another tripwire that even some of the most established of digital experiences get wrong.
C. Log in
D. Login
C is a verb. D is a noun. That means that Log in is synonymous with Sign in. It is an action we are instructing the user to take, and is the correct option when being used as a call-to-action. Login, conversely, is a thing, synonymous with credentials. When used as an alternative to log in, while it seemingly looks the same, the meaning behind it becomes illogical. It’s the same as using credentials or details on a call-to-action button instructing a user to do something — using a noun instead of a verb in this scenario simply doesn’t make sense.
There is no hard and fast rule about what should be used, rather guidance around what should not. And the reason that best practice user experience advises against using examples like A and B together is all down to accessibility.
Copy can be inaccessible too?
Accessibility often gets misunderstood as an effort designed solely to cater to users with an impairment or disability, often only pertaining to UI. And while much of the focus of accessibility is to address that and build accessible design and experiences for such users — that shouldn’t detract from the desire to make a user experience accessible to all users, taking into account all elements of design, including copy.
The example of using Sign in and Sign up together is an example of employing inaccessible copy standards due to the lack of distinguishing language features between the two different actions. Two different actions, that will most certainly always coexist alongside one another.
Put simply, the words that are aimed at two completely different user types, encouraging two completely different actions, look too similar — not least to those with visual impairments.
The solution? Any of the below combinations, which clearly distinguish and define the actions you want a user to complete:
Sign in + Register
Log in + Sign up
Log in + Register
But what can happen if you fail to employ carefully considered language like this?
Why the impact of inconsistency is a bit like playing action hero
Adopting a conscientious and consistent language base is a little bit like working for the CIA (bear with me here) — in that when done right, most people might not even know the difference.
Much like when Vin Diesel finds himself minutes away from saving the world in [insert your choice of Vin Diesel movie here], most people would only ever have found out what happened if things went horribly wrong. In Hollywood this doesn’t happen. In the world of digital design, it most certainly can.
Which is why taking the time to create consistent, well thought out language across digital experiences is so important. We’re talking less about marketing communications, hero banners and paid ads where there’s a little more creative licence — and more about well honed, carefully crafted UX copy that guides a user through their experience in the exact way you intend, and the exact way they have come to expect. This is where familiarity is key.
No one will thank you for labelling your headings, error messages and call-to-actions correctly — they’ll just expect it, and rightfully so.
So, when you fall foul of that and fail the customer with badly thought out or inconsiderate copy — much like when Vin Diesel fails to save the world in time — people are going to stand up and take notice, especially if it prevents them from completing an action or journey, which badly executed copy or design most certainly can.
Carefully crafted copy aligned with the right UX and UI design principles won’t often have to shine — it simply needs to do as expected. That’s not to say that more seamless experiences can’t make a name for themselves through ground-breaking design that really surprises a user — but it’s also always worth considering that not every experience can or needs to do this. And attempts to forcefully create moments of delight where they aren’t necessarily appropriate can have the opposite effect.
Sometimes, the best UX copy is that which goes unnoticed amidst its ease of completion, much like that well-executed mission that saved the world in [insert your choice of one Vin Diesel movie here].
In conclusion, if any budding action heroes are looking for something a little less risky while incorporating the same do-or-die attitude to their craft, maybe the Tom Cruises and Vin Diesels of the world might be very well suited joining the world of digital design once their theatrical reigns are over…
