So let's break this down:<p>1) "From a design perspective" - bad wording, true, but the underlying idea is "from a user-centric perspective" as opposed to "from an implementation, engineering, or data-centric perspective". The latter still being unfortunately the driving force behind most interfaces, any designer will need to use some form of this phrase fairly frequently in most real-world situations.<p>2) "Best Practices say" - again, this can be misused, but heuristic and expert evaluations of an interface are the bread and butter of most designers' toolset. A/B testing, on-site user testing, user interviews, et al, are all great tools, but in many cases, they're luxuries. When you're part of a small team trying to hit a MVP, starting with baseline best practices is the pragmatic way to go. Insisting on reinventing every dropdown or tabset is a sure fire way to singlehandedly sink a startup.<p>3) "Let's use an analogy" - generic, applicable to any problem-solving endeavor. This has nothing to do with UX. This is where the whole article started really stinking of linkbait.<p>4) Jargon - industry jargon is a powerful way of communicating specific, granular concepts to a peer audience. Yes, if you're using UX jargon when presenting your ideas to an outside audience, you're doing it wrong. But saying jargon is wrong is just dumb, and once again, jargon is hardly a UX-specific phenomenon.<p>5) "The research says" - let's just repeat #2 and blather on some more<p>6) Again, see #2.<p>7) Ok, so the basic idea here is that the True Pure UX involves coming up with brilliant new concepts in a vacuum. Leveraging successful ideas is verboten. I'm not sure how this guy could get anything done without the support of a 20-person UX team, with the other 19 people covering for his theoretical brilliance.<p>8) To be perfectly honest, I don't think I've ever heard the term focus groups used by anyone in the UX field, and I've been at it since '98. But you need 10 bullets on that list, I guess.<p>9) Probably the only point on this list that I agree with, and something I'd never seen until very recently. The concept of "stupid users" has obviously been entrenched in the development side since Day 1, hence the need for UX in the first place. But it's definitely disturbing to start seeing supposed user advocates start to toss this one around.<p>10) Big numbers are bad unless they're the right big numbers. Gotcha, mate. Misusing statistics and measurements is obviously an epidemic confined solely to the UX sphere, and not a basic human foible.