What Is User Experience? The Role of Text in Localisation

Two sites can do the same job and ask for the same steps, and yet one of them inspires confidence while the other does not. The concept used to describe that difference is user experience. It matters in localisation because most of what a user feels comes from the words they read.

Contents

The concept covers far more ground than whether a product works technically. What the user expects from the product, how they feel while using it and the impression they form of the organisation behind it all sit under this heading. The international definition puts it as the perceptions and responses that arise from the use, or the anticipated use, of a product.

This article looks at the boundaries of the concept, how it differs from usability, its four core components and its relationship with translation quality. At the end we suggest a concrete way of testing it in your own product.

What is user experience?

One definition from the literature captures the scope well: all the aspects of how people use an interactive product. How the product feels in the hand, how well its workings are understood, how it feels to use, how well it serves its purpose and how well it suits the context it is used in are all part of that whole (Alben 1996).

The breadth of that definition is no accident. Experience is not formed on a single screen but in the sum of a series of encounters. The sentence read in an advert, the description in the app store, the first launch screen and the support reply are all parts of the same impression.

From a localisation point of view, this changes the question of scope. Translating the interface alone and leaving the store description, the email notifications and the support replies in the source language splits the experience down the middle. Users notice the break.

There is no full agreement in the field about which factors belong under this heading. There is, however, a core list that is broadly agreed on, and that list offers a useful checking framework for localisation.

How does it differ from usability?

The two concepts are close relatives, but they do not measure the same thing. Usability is concerned with how well a user reaches a particular goal inside the product: moving from the basket to the checkout step, opening an account, uploading a file.

User experience covers everything around that task. How did the user expect the product to work? How did they feel throughout the process? Which way did their impression of the company shift? These questions cannot be answered by a single task measurement.

In practice the difference looks like this. A form may be perfectly straightforward to fill in, which is to say its usability is high. But if the order of the fields makes the user feel needlessly interrogated, the experience stays poor. That second problem can only be resolved through the text.

Translation assessment therefore has to ask two separate questions. Can the user finish the job, and how do they feel while finishing it? The first is a matter of measurement, the second largely a matter of style.

The four components of experience

The four generally agreed components translate directly into localisation decisions. The table below shows what each component asks and what it corresponds to on the text side.

Component	The question it asks	What it means in localisation
Findability	Can the content be found inside and outside the site?	Menu names and search terms are chosen to suit the language of the target market
Accessibility	Can users with different abilities reach the content?	Image descriptions and page titles are translated too
Desirability	Do the design and the content produce a positive feeling?	The brand voice is rebuilt in the target language rather than carried across word for word
Credibility	Does the user believe what is said?	Natural, consistent language prevents any impression of careless translation

In most projects findability is taken to be a purely technical heading. Yet users search for what they want in their own language. Staying faithful to the source-language equivalent of a menu name can mean tying yourself to a word nobody in the target market ever searches for.

Credibility is the quietest component of the four. When users notice that a text has been carelessly translated they usually say nothing about it; they simply become wary. At payment and personal data steps, that wariness can go as far as abandoning the transaction.

Desirability is the most misunderstood. Preserving the brand voice does not mean carrying the source sentence across word for word. A play on words that feels alive in one language can look forced in another. Writing a different sentence that produces the same feeling is often the more faithful solution.

Experience is subjective and it varies

Two points are treated as settled in this field: experience is subjective and it is dynamic (Bowker and Buitrago Ciro 2019). Its subjectivity comes from the fact that the same screen leaves a different impression on different users. Its dynamism comes from the fact that it changes over time.

The second point is often missed. As users grow used to an interface, the layout they found complicated on day one starts to feel ordinary. That does not make the first impression unimportant; on the contrary, it decides whether the user gets past that first day at all.

Subjectivity and variability rule out any permanent verdict based on a single measurement. The comments of one group of users point in a direction, but on their own they do not count as proof. Repeating the measurement at regular intervals gives a more reliable picture.

In localisation this means keeping the feedback channel open. The phrases users stumble over show up again and again in support requests. Passing those requests on to the language team on a regular basis is one of the cheapest ways of improving quality.

Products developed in the source culture

One study found that the perceived usability of a site is directly related to whether the site was developed in the user’s own culture and language (Nantel and Glaser 2008). In other words, users find a product designed for their own context easier to get on with.

The finding also marks the limit of localisation. Translation carried out after the fact cannot fully compensate for design decisions taken in the source culture. If the order of the form fields, the address format or the choice of examples was built for the source market, text alone will not be enough.

The same finding holds an opportunity too. When the scope of adaptation is widened, the localised version can end up suiting the target user better than the original does. That requires opening up a degree of decision-making authority to the translation team.

In practice it means giving the translator limited permission to adapt. Being able to change examples, units of measurement and references with no local equivalent buys a large gain for a small amount of flexibility in most projects. Setting out the limits of that permission in writing prevents unwelcome surprises.

How is experience tested?

The field has a long tradition of evaluation. In test sessions participants are given a series of tasks and certain measures are tracked throughout. What is measured is the effectiveness and the efficiency of the product, together with the user’s overall satisfaction.

One common evaluation method is for a specialist to review the product against a list of principles. The items below gather the part of that list which has most to do with text (Nielsen 2020).

1. Visibility of system status: can the user find out what is going on within a reasonable time?
2. Match between the system and the real world: are the words used ones the user already knows?
3. Consistency and standards: is the same thing called by the same word everywhere?
4. Recognising, diagnosing and recovering from errors: are messages written in plain language and do they offer a way out?
5. Help and documentation: is there a searchable, task-focused resource when one is needed?

Every item on the list has a bearing on translation. Using words the user knows, avoiding system-oriented terminology and presenting information in a natural order are all language decisions. It therefore makes sense for the language team to take part in the review as well.

A specialist review is no substitute for testing with real users. The two complement each other: an expert eye weeds out the obvious problems quickly, while real users surface the sticking points nobody anticipated. Getting the order right means the specialist review first and the user test afterwards.

The Türkiye context

In Türkiye most users come across both Turkish and English interfaces within the same day. That habit of comparison raises the bar of expectation. A carelessly written Turkish interface is judged more harshly because the user measures it against an international product in the same category.

The credibility component is especially sensitive here. A faulty Turkish sentence encountered at the online checkout step can trigger a security worry outright. Reviewing the payment, subscription cancellation and data-sharing screens with separate care is therefore worth the effort.

Third, search behaviour follows the patterns of the local language. Users search with the words they use in everyday speech, and formal equivalents can fall behind in the results. Decisions about menus and headings need to be made by looking at local search habits rather than at the source text.

A fourth heading is support correspondence. When something goes wrong, users in Türkiye mostly prefer written channels, and the language of the reply they receive changes their impression of the product directly. Making support templates use the same terms as the interface is a small but effective correction for the coherence of the experience.

What does this mean for you?

Spending the localisation budget on interface text alone leaves most of the experience out. Every text through which a user comes into contact with your brand is part of the same whole and should carry the same voice.

1. List every text in which the user meets your brand: the store description, notifications, emails, support replies.
2. Tie all of those texts to the same style guide.
3. Have the payment and data-sharing screens reviewed separately.
4. Choose menu and heading wording according to local search habits.
5. Share the language problems that come out of support requests with the language team every three months.

These steps call for discipline in sequencing rather than extra software. For a plan that fits your scope you can get in touch with us, and you can look through articles on related subjects in our knowledge centre.

Frequently asked questions

Are user experience and usability the same thing?

No. Usability is about how well a user completes a particular task. User experience is a broader concept, covering what the user expected the product to do, how they felt while using it and the impression they formed of the organisation behind it.

What are the core components of experience?

The four widely accepted components are findability, accessibility, desirability and credibility. Content has to be findable, open to users with different abilities, capable of producing a positive feeling and able to inspire trust.

Why is experience considered subjective and variable?

It is considered subjective because the same screen leaves a different impression on different users. It is considered variable because a user’s first-day impression changes as they get used to the interface. A single measurement should therefore never be treated as a permanent verdict.

Does translation quality affect the perception of trust?

It does. When users meet a text that does not read naturally in their own language, they become wary of the product itself. At sensitive steps such as payment and personal data, that wariness can go as far as abandoning the transaction.

Sources

• Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2024). Localization in Translation. Routledge, pp. 105–108.
• Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience. Interactions, 3(3), pp. 11–15.
• Nantel, J. and Glaser, E. (2008). The impact of language and culture on perceived website usability. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25(1–2), pp. 112–122.