@BigTava thanks for the comment.
I have to disagree regarding the statistical significance argument—this isn’t about statistical significance, and treating it like it is completely misses the point.
What we’re talking about isn’t subjective opinion. It’s established UX design and product communication principles. Things like broken links, circular onboarding, vague messaging, and a lack of clear “why” are not up for debate. These are fundamental failures of user-centric thinking.
You don’t need to ask 100 CTOs to know that. That’s like needing a poll to confirm that unreadable text or a dead button is bad UX.
This is where frameworks like AIDA come in—Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. This isn’t theory. This is the playbook used by every high-converting product and landing page in the world:
• Grab attention with clarity.
• Build interest with real-world use cases.
• Create desire through relatable outcomes.
• Drive action with an obvious, low-friction next step.
What’s missing is not consensus. What’s missing is execution based on principles that already exist.
And more importantly—people don’t buy numbers, they buy stories.
You could put a million analytics dashboards in bold 18px font on the front page, and it still won’t convert unless users feel something. What does this unlock for them? What can they build? What have others built? What’s the smallest, clearest step they can take right now?
If we want people to care, we need narrative, clarity, and proof of possibility—not just data.
So no—we don’t need statistics. We need to stop reinventing the wheel and start applying what’s been proven to work.