Menu

Research

The difference between listening to users and understanding them

It's easy to listen to users. It's much harder to understand them.

Why research becomes more valuable when it goes beyond what users say and starts interpreting what they actually do.

13 June 20253 min read

In short

Why research becomes more valuable when it goes beyond what users say and starts interpreting what they actually do.

Why listening is only the start

I've been in where users confidently explain how they would behave, only to do something completely different a few minutes later. They say they'd read everything before making a decision, then skip half the content. They say they want more options, then hesitate when presented with them. They say something is clear, then struggle when they try to use it. None of that is intentional. It's just how people are.

Nobody is being unhelpful when this happens. People are describing an idealised of themselves, because that is genuinely how they imagine they behave. The gap is not dishonesty, it is the difference between how someone thinks about a task in the abstract and what they do when they are actually in it.

What people say and what they actually do are often two very different things.

Where listening starts to fall short

If you take everything at face value, you end up designing for what users say they want, not what actually helps them. On one project, users repeatedly asked for more information earlier in the journey. The instinct was to surface more content upfront. On paper, that aligned perfectly with what had been said. In practice, it made the experience heavier and harder to move through. What users were really asking for wasn't more information. It was more . That's a different problem.

The repeats across almost every project. Users ask for more options when they mean they do not the default. They ask for a shorter form when they mean they do not understand why one of the questions is being asked. Taking the literally solves something, but rarely the thing that was actually wrong.

This is why the useful follow-up is almost never do you want more of this. It is what were you hoping to find out at that point, or what would have made you comfortable enough to carry on. Those questions get at the need underneath the .

Key takeaway

Users often describe the symptom they feel, not the actual cause behind it.

Where understanding begins

Understanding comes from looking beyond the words. It's about how people behave, where they hesitate, what they ignore, and what they expect to happen next. It's about spotting the gaps between what's said and what's done, and working out what's actually driving that .

Some of the most useful come from those gaps: a user saying something is fine but taking longer than expected to complete it; a moment where they pause not because something is unclear but because it doesn't feel right; a where they second-guess themselves even though they've been given all the information they need. Those moments rarely show up in a summary, but they're often where the real issues sit.

Watching for it takes deliberate effort, because the interesting moments are quiet. A pause before a button. A scroll back up to re-read something. A cursor hovering while somebody decides. None of it registers as a problem in the moment, and all of it is evidence that the is asking for more than it should.

What separates output from impact

Strong gets lost all the time because it gets reduced to a deck of quotes and . Everyone nods. Everyone agrees. It gets filed away as useful. And nothing changes.

Less polished can to real impact when someone takes the time to interpret it properly: to connect the dots, challenge what it means, push it into decisions instead of just documenting it. That's where the real difference sits. Not in how the research looks, but in what it changes. Good research is slightly uncomfortable. It challenges assumptions that felt safe, exposes gaps that weren't obvious, creates questions where there used to be certainty. That's when you know it's doing something.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services.

Previous feedback

I had a fantastic experience working with Andy. One of his most impressive achievements during our time at NHS HEE was masterminding a deeply complex information architecture for a new platform that brought together a large number of legacy websites.

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer