Design decisions backed by what users actually do, not what stakeholders assume
UX research combining user interviews, usability testing, and behavioural data before any design work starts.
Where this usually breaks down
Most redesign briefs start from an internal opinion - a stakeholder doesn't like how a page looks, or a competitor shipped something newer. That's not evidence of a problem users actually have, and building on it means the new version can fail the same people the old one did, just in a different way.
Analytics tell you where people drop off. They don't tell you why. A team staring at a funnel chart can guess at five different explanations for the same drop-off point, and without talking to actual users, the redesign ends up solving the wrong one.
What this service actually solves
UX research closes that gap by putting real usage in front of the decision instead of behind it. Interviews and usability sessions surface the reasoning people apply in the moment - what they expected, what confused them, where they gave up - which no dashboard captures on its own.
Done properly, research isn't a report that gets filed away. It becomes the brief the design work is built against, so structural decisions are traceable back to something a real person said or did, not to whoever argued loudest in the review meeting.
UX research is the process of finding out how people actually use a product or site - through interviews, usability testing, and behavioural data - before committing to a design direction, so decisions are based on observed behaviour rather than internal assumptions.
How we run it
We run research proportionate to the decision it's informing - a handful of moderated interviews and a session-recording review for a focused feature, a fuller programme of usability testing and journey mapping ahead of a full redesign. Every engagement ends the same way: findings synthesised into a design brief the next phase can actually work from, not a slide deck that gets read once.
Capabilities & deliverables
User Interviews & Contextual Inquiry
- Moderated one-on-one interviews
- Task-based observation in context
- Stakeholder assumption interviews
Usability Testing
- Testing on live products or prototypes
- Task completion and error rate review
- Think-aloud protocol sessions
Behavioural Analytics Review
- Heatmap and scroll-depth analysis
- Session recording review
- Funnel and drop-off diagnosis
Persona & Journey Development
- Evidence-based persona construction
- End-to-end journey mapping
- Friction point identification
Research Synthesis
- Findings translated into design priorities
- Affinity mapping across sessions
- Handoff brief for the design phase
What's in scope, area by area
| Area | What we deliver |
|---|---|
| Discovery | Interview and testing plan scoped to the actual decision at hand |
| Fieldwork | Sessions run, recorded, and logged - interviews, usability tests, or both |
| Synthesis | Findings grouped into patterns, not a raw transcript dump |
| Handoff | A design brief with prioritised findings the next phase is built against |
How an engagement runs
Scope the question
Define what decision the research needs to inform before choosing a method - this determines whether interviews, testing, or analytics review is the right tool.
Recruit
Source participants who match the real user base, not whoever is easiest to reach.
Run sessions
Conduct interviews or usability tests, recorded where consent allows, with a consistent script across participants.
Review behavioural data
Cross-check what people said against what analytics and session recordings show them actually doing.
Synthesise
Group findings into patterns and prioritise which ones actually change the design direction.
Hand off
Deliver a brief the design team can act on directly, with the reasoning behind each finding intact.
How this compares
| Research-Led Design | Opinion-Led Design |
|---|---|
| Decisions traced back to observed behaviour | Decisions traced back to whoever argued loudest in review |
| Problems found before build, cheaply | Problems found after launch, expensively |
| Redesign targets a known cause | Redesign guesses at a cause and sometimes misses |
Neither approach is instant - research adds time upfront in exchange for removing guesswork later.
What this changes for the business
- Design decisions are traceable to something a real user said or did, not to internal preference
- Drop-off points get a diagnosed cause instead of a guessed one
- Redesign work targets the actual friction, reducing the odds of shipping a second version with the same problem
Who needs this
A team about to redesign without knowing why the current version underperforms
Research identifies the actual cause before the rebuild starts, rather than after it ships.
A product team launching a new feature into unfamiliar user behaviour
Interviews and testing reduce the number of expensive assumptions baked into the first release.
A team where design decisions are currently settled by internal debate
Research gives the debate something external to check itself against.
Related work
We're still building out published proof for this specific service — ask us directly and we'll walk through relevant examples.
Common questions
At a scale that fits the project - even a handful of user interviews or a review of existing session recordings surfaces more than skipping research entirely.
For usability testing, five to eight participants per user segment typically surfaces most of the recurring issues - more sessions mostly find the same problems repeated. Interviews for exploratory research often run a bit deeper per person rather than wider.
No - sometimes research confirms the current design is largely fine, which is a valid and useful outcome, not a failure of the process. We won't manufacture a finding to justify the engagement.
Existing analytics, heatmaps, and session recordings get reviewed first - there's no reason to re-collect data you already have. Research fills the gaps analytics can't answer, mainly the 'why' behind a pattern.
That's usually exactly when research earns its cost. We present findings with the evidence behind them so the conversation shifts from opinion versus opinion to opinion versus observed behaviour.
A focused round - interviews or testing on one flow - usually runs one to two weeks including recruitment. A fuller programme ahead of a full redesign takes longer, mainly because reaching the right participants takes time.
Not sure if you need a research phase?
Tell us what decision you're trying to make and we'll tell you honestly whether research is worth the time it costs.
Ready to get started?
We usually reply within 24 hours.