Should UX Writers and Localization Be Separate Teams?
Every word matters. That central tenet has long guided user experience (UX) writing, especially in digital contexts where space for words, phrases, and sentences is typically limited. Every word truly has to matter to get an important point across quickly.
The same is true in localization, though in a slightly different sense. Localizing your experience and products to individual markets is essential for brand growth, and it can only be possible when every word sounds comfortable and native to your audience.
Put differently, the two concepts of localization and UX writing are clearly and closely related, and both aim to make the experience for your audience as natural as possible. So, should UX writers and localization experts be part of the same team?
The answer is more complex than you might think, and there are compelling arguments to be made for each side of the equation. Below, we will discuss both sides in more detail, including situations where combining or separating your UX writing and localization teams might make the most sense.
The Case for UX Writers and Localization to Combine Into a Single Team
Given the proximity between UX writing and localization, combining them into a single team might be the most natural choice. In some cases, it certainly is. This combination can help both teams improve their output for a few reasons:
UX copy should always be ready for localization. Even when creating the original content, writers should be mindful of how it can be translated. That means avoiding local slang that is difficult to translate and cultural references that might not resonate with audiences in other markets. The more content veers in this direction, the more difficult localization will become.
Localization can provide helpful context for UX writing and design. Consider how different word lengths and sizes affect a website's button structure. Localization input from the beginning can ensure that the writing and design around that button match the initial language and any expansions in other languages.
Localization can provide helpful insights for UX research. For example, a multi-lingual website must be optimized for local and international users. Early input from the localization group allows user research to equally account for all audience segments, avoiding potential future issues as the global audience (for whom the website was not designed) expands.
UX writers and localization can collaborate on selecting the right tools for everyone involved, like a CMS or translation system. This avoids a heavy emphasis on either the initial content production or content translation, instead building a balance that increases the chances these tools will continue to succeed even as target markets expand.
Ultimately, the case for UX writers and localization to share a single team comes down to this; it allows the organization to consider content more holistically, with all potential markets in mind. The process moves from linear to collaborative, with the result being content designed to succeed across international audiences.
Finally, combining localization and UX writing into one content team ensures a stronger voice for content in the organization. Product owners, UX designers, and digital developers can leverage more refined content as they build wireframes, drafts, and prototypes, ultimately leading to a more prosperous, holistic workflow across the organization when expanding to new markets.
The Case for UX Writers and Localization to Remain in Separate Teams
Combining the two areas, at first glance, seems obvious. However, there is a solid case for separating these two areas of expertise. After all, while they might be close cousins, these UX writing and localization are not identical and will work from different points of origin in a few critical ways:
UX writing is narrowly focused, while localization goes beyond writing. While UX writing focuses specifically on digital content delivery, localization is much broader. It can focus on an entire product or service, including changing the writing, images, words, and even design. For example, while most app developers use UTF-8 standards for international audiences, Asian languages require UTF-16 to account for all fonts, glyphs, and characters.
Focusing on localization-ready language can lose vital local appeal. Working localization into UX writing from the beginning risks becoming so broad that the local appeal needs to be recovered. While some slang, nuances, and cultural references might be different to translate and localize, those same references can also be the difference maker in establishing your brand voice and local appeal. For example, the American appeal of Levi's apparel abroad might get lost if creative development began from the point of origin that everything needed to be international.
Introducing confounding variables in UX research. As mentioned above, introducing localization in UX research can create a more comprehensive picture of the needs and expectations of all target audiences. However, the opposite side of this is also worth considering. When localization begins to influence and even dominate UX research, more variables like demographic background and cultural nuances get introduced. Without further research, they become confounding variables that can make it more difficult to gain valuable user insights.
Envisioning scenarios in which these points could become problematic is relatively easy. A narrowly focused UX team may not benefit from broadly focused localization input that thinks about much more than "just" writing. Similarly, that narrow UX writing focus may be frustrating to localization experts who have to think about much more than the website.
Combined or Separate: What Solution Works Best for Your Business Strategy?
The answer is far from simple. There are plenty of scenarios where combining localization and UX writing efforts or keeping them separate makes more sense. The best thing to do is adjust your strategy according to your individual situation within the organization and the larger environment. For example:
Combining the two efforts is most effective in products where writing is core to success.
When local nuances are vital to your brand appeal, you can put writing before localization instead of putting them on equal footing.
When UX research has to consider all localized nuances, combining the teams makes sense. Where your home audience still provides the most valuable insights, it might not.
Of course, these are just some of the many examples in which one or the other situation may be most beneficial. And then, there is the middle of the road to consider. Instead of combining the two areas or keeping them entirely possible, you can install a UX writing liaison within your localization team and vice versa. After all, the two areas do remain closely related to each other.
That close relationship is essential to keep in mind as you build your organizational and creative structure around localization. No matter what, the two sides interact. Keeping them entirely apart will be impossible. Deciding on the degree of interaction is essential but can also be more manageable than making more categorical decisions.
Localization remains a fascinating topic in a world that grows ever closer together. Looking for more insights or want to join our global community of experts? Contact us today.