CTFL-UT ISTQB Certified Tester-Foundation Level - Usability Testing Questions and Answers

Usability labs provide a controlled environment that offers several advantages for observing and recording usability test sessions. Specifically, they allow for easy observation of participants (ii), standardized conditions for each session (iv), and facilitate audio and video recording for detailed analysis (v). However, the context is not natural (i), because the lab is an artificial setting rather than the user’s actual environment. Also, setting up a professional usability lab is not inexpensive (iii); it typically involves significant costs for equipment, space, and staffing. Therefore, options ii, iv, and v are true, while i and iii are false.

At an early development stage where only a rudimentary prototype exists, a usability review (e.g., expert or heuristic review) is the most effective method. It allows usability specialists to identify potential usability issues without the need for a fully functioning product. Reviews can provide immediate, actionable feedback to guide design improvements before moving into more resource-intensive usability testing. An unmoderated usability test (B) or lab test (D) may be impractical at this stage due to limited interactivity. A usability maturity assessment (C) evaluates organizational processes and is not applicable to evaluating a specific prototype.

The use of HTML tables for layout instead of proper semantic HTML and responsive design violates accessibility guidelines, particularly those defined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Such a design makes it difficult or impossible for users relying on screen readers, keyboard navigation, or other assistive technologies to interact effectively with the site. Therefore, this creates a significant accessibility risk, which is distinct from general usability or user experience risks. Accessibility ensures inclusion of users with physical or cognitive impairments, making option B the correct choice.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) define three levels of conformance for web content accessibility:

Level A (Single A) is the minimum level of compliance.

Level AA (Double A) is the standard recommended for most websites, balancing accessibility and design.

Level AAA (Triple A) is the highest and most comprehensive level of accessibility, covering the widest range of needs.

There is no such level as “Quadruple A (AAAA),” making option D invalid.

Thus, WCAG Triple A (AAA) promises the most accessible content, even though it may not always be practically achievable for all types of content.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide standards to ensure websites are accessible to people with disabilities. They specifically address:

i. Text resizability (SC 1.4.4),

iii. Text alternatives for non-text content (SC 1.1.1),

iv. Keyboard accessibility (SC 2.1.1),

v. Device independence, which includes not relying solely on mouse input.

Visually appealing design (ii) is not an accessibility requirement and is thus not a WCAG focus. The correct answer is D: i, iii, iv & v are true; ii is false.

Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE) is a usability method in which usability issues are identified and addressed in short cycles. Unlike traditional usability testing, RITE allows for immediate redesigns and retesting of the improved version within the same study. The goal is to refine the design quickly based on observed usability issues. Option A confuses scheduling with methodology, B is too vague, and D inaccurately characterizes RITE as quantitative, while it is typically qualitative. Therefore, C accurately reflects the purpose and approach of RITE.

Human-centered design, as defined by ISO 9241-210, emphasizes early user involvement, iterative design, and continuous usability evaluation. Option D aligns with this model as it begins with understanding user needs (interview users), proceeds through iterative prototyping (which allows for continuous improvement), and involves user evaluation. This ensures that the final product is shaped by real user input and feedback. Options A and B lack iteration and continuous evaluation, while option C, although partially aligned, lacks explicit user involvement in the evaluation process, focusing only on expert reviews.

The scenario describes a situation where the interface misleads users into making serious financial mistakes due to poor design, such as confusing decimal separators. Even though the system functions correctly, it facilitates critical user errors. This constitutes a major usability risk with potential legal and financial consequences. Therefore, the correct risk to address is increased liability due to financial loss caused by a poorly designed or deceptive interface (option D). The other options focus on usability-related dissatisfaction, resistance, or lack of adoption, which are not the key concern in this scenario.

A usability test session is a controlled period during which a test participant performs tasks using the system under test while being observed by a moderator and sometimes additional stakeholders or observers. The goal is to understand how users interact with the interface and identify usability problems. Option A describes an individual task, not the whole session. Option C refers to a test plan or test script, and Option D describes a test technique rather than a usability session. Thus, option B provides the most accurate and comprehensive definition.