I keep seeing magazines and fashion websites referring to assorted printed garments as 'ikat'.

First, half the time, the print in question simply does not have the rough edge to the shapes that ikat would. But secondly and more importantly to me, the word 'print' is missing much too often---after all, ikat is a technique (weaving pattern with tie-dyed threads) and not a genre of pattern per se, so saying 'ikat print' would seem kinda important as a distinction? You know, like a tie-dye garment is different from a tie-dye print, or mock croc vs the real thing, or leather-look leggings vs actual hide...?

Especially weird to see this in Indian and other Asian publications, where fabrics actually woven with the technique abound and the room for confusion is thus much greater (the woven sort should be exponentially more expensive in comparable garments than a print).

Okay, getting off my soapbox now.