That's an awfully cynical perspective, but these terms evolved because they're useful. No one is forcing us to speak them (although they are forcing us to hear them.)
I would rather refer to affordances than to "user-facing touchpoints", because that's a more specific abstraction aimed at, specifically, interactive elements whereas "touchpoints" is, to me, vague; does it refer, also, to the merely visual aspects which "touch" our retinas?
"Friction" is a metaphor, and there's nothing wrong with that! I imagine that one monitoring a conversion funnel would naturally ask "what's causing the members of this cohort to drop out of the flow?" Well, it's friction that challenges spatial progress, and spatial metaphors make good use of some underused cognitive hardware.
"Increase stickiness... but also keep it lean", though is, at worst, an oxymoron and, at best, lazy along the lines of "... just make it good and not bad."
My perspective may come across cynical, although I am not a cynic, I just see this as what I observe. I am usually described as a very optimistic and patient person.
My position is the perspective of a former freelancer who had to translate that lingo into actual actionable steps. The perspective of someone who builds a website alone in a day, while building one on a month when guided by committee.
I have nothing against specialized language, if it serves a purpose as I mentioned in my philosophy example. For some concepts the specialized words are the only ones giving you the precise language needed to reference them in a meaningful way. What I dislike is needless specialized language by people whose job is it to let others interpret what they meant. The ambiguity is of course a feature on multiple dime sions, they can decide whether you read the runes correctly after the fact.
I would rather refer to affordances than to "user-facing touchpoints", because that's a more specific abstraction aimed at, specifically, interactive elements whereas "touchpoints" is, to me, vague; does it refer, also, to the merely visual aspects which "touch" our retinas?
"Friction" is a metaphor, and there's nothing wrong with that! I imagine that one monitoring a conversion funnel would naturally ask "what's causing the members of this cohort to drop out of the flow?" Well, it's friction that challenges spatial progress, and spatial metaphors make good use of some underused cognitive hardware.
"Increase stickiness... but also keep it lean", though is, at worst, an oxymoron and, at best, lazy along the lines of "... just make it good and not bad."