Consistency in UX content aims to enhance the usability and user experience, but sometimes it is prioritized so highly that it compromises the overall experience.

So, here’s what I think about consistency:

There are three aspects of consistency in microcopy — two of them are crucial, and the third, in my opinion, is not important at all.

Aspect 1: Consistency in terminology

The first, and very important consistency, is in terminology and terminology use.

For users to feel in control of a product, they need to know that everything has only one name throughout the product, and that it’s always written in the same way.

For example, if at the beginning of a process, I am told about opening a deposit, and I click a button that says Open a deposit,” but then I arrive at a page titled “Open a savings account” — I immediately ask myself whether I am in the right place and whether a deposit and a savings account are the same thing. In this (real) case — a deposit and savings account are indeed the same thing, but users cannot know this, and they might entirely abandon the process because they want a deposit and are not sure they are in the right place.

Other questions that might arise include whether we should write the term in acronyms or not, and if we should use its American or British form. Such inconsistencies can raise questions among users, and therefore it’s best to avoid them.

This is especially important in complex systems, where users need to compare and connect data in different places. It’s very important to ensure that the terms used in all places are indeed identical and that the decisions they are making are indeed based on the correct and suitable data.

Aspect 2: Consistency in message structure

The second important consistency is in the structure of messages. For example, in a confirmation dialog, if we decide that the title will be a short question (Cancel the order? Delete the file? Exit without saving?), it’s worth sticking to this always, and not switching to a new form each time (such as: Are you sure you want to leave? Wait a minute, cancel the order? etc.).

This way, users get accustomed to this format, expect it, and can respond quickly. The same goes for the structure of toast messages, error messages, alerts (warnings), and more.

This consistency isn’t dogmatic, and we might want to deviate from it for precision or to draw attention, but there should be a basic uniform structure that we only deviate from when necessary.

Aspect 3: Consistency across the flow

The third consistency, which I think isn’t important at all, is along the flow. For instance, in a website for ordering a car online that we wrote recently, users can customize their car and choose the color, upholstery, equipment, and more. So if we wrote on one button “Choose upholstery,” do we have to write also “Choose color” and “Choose equipment,” or can we mix it up and write “Explore color gallery” and “See available upgrades”?

True, it causes users to pause for a split second before each button instead of advancing automatically, but is this a problem we need to avoid in this specific case, or does it actually highlight the broad selection and enriches the exciting experience of choosing a new car?

Another example: if in the first field of a form we asked: “What’s your name?” Do we now have to write everything in questions for consistency’s sake (“What’s your address?”), or can we opt for simpler forms as needed (“Address”)?

And if in one field we added a hint in a placeholder or tooltip to clarify something relevant to that field — do we now have to put a placeholder or tooltip in every field in the name of consistency and add a ton of cognitive load just to be uniform?

In my opinion, in the three latter cases (the car, the address and the hint) — the attempt to maintain consistency harms the experience and misses the point.

In other words, if in the name of consistency we automatically choose writing forms that are less fluid, less experiential, or less accurate — we’re throwing out the good with the bad.

The bottom line

So aside from terminology (which must be completely consistent) and a fixed message structure (which helps users absorb and respond quickly), let’s remember that our goal is not consistency for consistency’s sake — but an easy, fluent, clear and delightful user experience. For that, we sometimes need to break the consistency.

This doesn’t mean that we need to be wild and free, but that we should always ask ourselves if the consistency in this case contributes to the user experience or detracts from it. If it detracts — feel free to break the rules. Your users will thank you.