There's a limit to ensure that you think well about how your question should be tagged and don't resort to just tagging it with everything in hope that it will somehow surface to more people. It also keeps the tag system focused.
The limit is not surfaced until you enter 5 tags because you don't need to know the limit until you reach it.
Your question ...
"User interface" is too vague to be of use. Tags exist to categorize content so that it's easier to find answers to questions you need help with or so you can subscribe to them if you're an expert. No one is an expert at "user interfaces". No one is going to look at answers to questions about "user interfaces" and find a common thread that will help them. ...
This tag has been removed and made intrinsic (same as a blacklist, but won't block inbound migrations) - it's now in the same class as user-interface, which should give you a clue as to why it wasn't already blacklisted.
10 questions had no other tags - please retag them appropriately.
Over the years, five tags has proven to be sufficient for the vast, vast majority of questions without trying to overly-categorize questions from every conceivable context.
If you find that you consistently need more than five tags, there's a pretty good chance you are adding superfluous tags that aren't really needed. Over the years, five tags has shown to ...
Yeah I can merge & synonymize the two unless there are objections (which I very much doubt).
Generally we prefer the plural form for the tag, so both would be rolled up into buttons. Any objections?
I went and made them synonyms.
I'll disagree that "classical" copywriting has no place on the UX SE.
IMHO, copy is just as much a part of the UX as anything else. Microcopy (as defined by JohnGB) and classical copy (the content of the product, the messaging, the prose) are what truly give the user something to experience. Without content, it's just design.
I'm not downplaying the ...
As far as I can tell, the term microcopy was coined by Joshua Porter (Bokardo).
Ironically, the smallest bits of copy, microcopy, can have the biggest impact.
Microcopy is small yet powerful copy. It’s fast, light, and deadly.
It’s a short sentence, a phrase, a few words. A single word. It’s the
small copy that has the biggest impact. Don’t ...
The term 'design' is simply too broad of a term for it to be a tag.
Specific tags may make sense such as:
But 'design' by itself just has no context so could really apply to most anything on this site.
If it means what I think it means, eg. the way users interact with software, then it's too broad. It looks like it's on quite a few questions that are also tagged with things like button and forms. Those are specific and in line with the nature of the questions. So I think it might be okay to get rid of it and rely on those more specific tags instead.
A Desktop is a specific type of interface in addition to a type of computer. [desktop-application] fits applications designed for a desktop computer, but not questions about desktop style interfaces. We even have at least one question about these sort of interfaces.
The most common one is probably the Windows Desktop:
Note that desktop interfaces aren'...
It's not actually an image, it's a CSS gradient. If you want to adjust the style of the site to match your specific requirements I recommend installing the Stylebot extension for Chrome or Stylish for Firefox with which you can click an element on the page and then change its CSS however you want.
Basically you'll want to find .post-tag and then remove or ...
The "design" tag seems to be more noise than signal. It doesn't get used very often (299 tags ever). And when it does get used, there's often a "[specifier]-design" tag used, too. After reviewing the list questions tagged "design", I can't see a meaningful pattern emerging. Contrast that with the questions tagged "user research", which is clearly a ...
i agree with you. in fact, it's worse that being merely redundant on the site...it provides a seemingly-sanctioned way for users to be sloppy with tagging ("oh, i can just use experience").
if there's resolution here i'm happy to retag the questions...there aren't too many of them.
Tags is what it is since it's a folksonomy in the first place. That means that they should be built from the users and not by authorities, which in our case means moderators or SE-employees. They are a bewildered forest of signs without any control (if they are folksonomy tags only).
But our tags are in a loose way governed by privileged users and ...
There are some natural laws "physics" (more precisely, dynamics) with crowdsourced sites, and one of these is the inevitable buildup of a long tail of cruft. If you look at anything from the vote distribution to the distribution of high scores on the site you'll see that same pareto trend.
Tags are subject to that same dynamic. There are a few tags which ...
I think we need a special tag for these selling questions, and I couldn't find any useful existing tag. We could use general terms such as convince or persuade. The problem with those is that they would probablyguessing not be found or used, and require moderation from the community.
Maybe a selling or selling-ux tag could do the trick, especially since ...