iSQI CTFL-UT ISTQB Certified Tester-Foundation Level - Usability Testing Exam Practice Test

An informal usability review can be conducted by anyone, including stakeholders or developers, and does not require formal usability training or qualifications. It is typically subjective and based on general impressions. In contrast, an expert usability review (also called heuristic evaluation) is conducted by a trained usability expert who applies recognized usability principles. This is what differentiates the two approaches most clearly. Options A and C are misleading; expert reviews can be informal in format, and informal reviews aren't necessarily based solely on opinion. Option D is incorrect since both informal and expert reviews can be conducted individually or in groups.

Moderating the usability test is a core activity during the actual usability test session. The moderator guides participants through tasks, ensures the session stays on track, and avoids introducing bias. Option A (testing the setup) happens before the session, during preparation. Option C (extracting findings) occurs during analysis, after the test. Option D (talking during task execution) should be minimized unless necessary, to avoid influencing user behavior. Therefore, option B is the only correct answer aligned with best practices in usability testing.

Conducting user surveys involves a structured approach that ensures data collection is effective, reliable, and meaningful. The process typically starts with writing a survey plan, which defines the objectives, scope, target population, and methodology. Next, interviewing users and stakeholders is important to gather qualitative insights, refine survey questions, and align the survey with business goals and user needs.

Selecting or designing the questionnaire follows, which includes crafting clear, unbiased questions to capture the desired data. After that, deploying the questionnaire to the recruited participants is essential; this can be done via email, online tools, or in-person, depending on the context. Once the data is collected, it must be analyzed to extract meaningful patterns, trends, and insights. Finally, communicating the findings to stakeholders completes the process by informing decision-making.

Other options miss critical steps such as deploying the questionnaire (Option C), or combine steps incorrectly (Options A and D). Importantly, the step of interviewing users and stakeholders prior to deployment ensures the survey is well-informed and targeted, enhancing the quality and relevance of data collected.

A usability evaluation is specifically designed to assess how real users interact with a software product. It focuses on effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction in completing tasks. This may involve usability testing, expert reviews, or heuristic evaluations. The goal is to identify any usability problems and understand user behavior during real use.

Option A (Accessibility evaluation) targets inclusivity for users with disabilities, not general user interaction. Option B (Usability maturity assessment) evaluates the organization’s usability practices, and Option C (Risk assessment) evaluates potential project or system risks. Only option D directly involves observing and measuring user interaction.

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.

A best practice in usability reporting (based on ISO/IEC 25062:2006 – Common Industry Format for usability test reports) is to include a clear description of the evaluation method used. This includes how the test was designed, how participants were selected, what tasks were performed, and under what conditions the test was conducted. This ensures the results are credible and reproducible. The provided structure omits this essential information. While the report length is not excessive and positive findings may or may not be present, the key missing component is the method description.

The usability test moderator plays a crucial role during the execution phase of a usability test. Their principal task is to facilitate the test sessions by guiding participants through predefined testing tasks, observing behaviors, and ensuring that the test environment is neutral and free from bias. Defining testing tasks, however, is primarily done during the test design phase by the usability test designer or analyst, but the moderator ensures these tasks are clearly communicated and administered to participants during the session. Logging usability problems (option B) is often done by observers or analysts reviewing session recordings or notes, not directly by the moderator during live testing. Creating a survey plan (option C) and writing the usability test plan (option D) are preparatory activities generally done before the test sessions and are not the moderator's main focus. Therefore, the principal role of the moderator centers on conducting the sessions and managing task delivery effectively to obtain authentic user interaction with the system under test.

The usability tester, often synonymous with the usability test moderator in practice, is primarily responsible for interacting directly with the test participants during the usability testing sessions. This role includes communicating with participants to guide them through test tasks, answering questions without leading responses, and ensuring the session runs smoothly. Effective communication is essential to facilitate participant comfort, elicit genuine user behaviors, and capture accurate usability data.

Performing the pre-session briefing (Option A) may be done by the usability tester but is often a shared responsibility or part of test facilitation protocols. Discussing findings (Option C) typically falls to analysts or usability experts after testing sessions are completed and data analyzed. Defining testing tasks (Option D) is usually done by test designers or analysts during test planning, not during the test execution.

Therefore, communicating with test participants during testing is a core, principal task of the usability tester role.

A usability test plan is a foundational document created before conducting usability testing. It outlines the objectives, scope, methodology, participants, tasks, and schedule for the testing activities. One of its essential components is the schedule, which details when and how test sessions will occur to ensure proper resource allocation and time management. Including a schedule helps coordinate between test moderators, participants, observers, and stakeholders, making the testing process organized and efficient.

While briefing instructions (Option B) may be related to the usability test, they are typically documented separately or included in participant materials rather than the formal test plan itself. The test plan should be concise and focused; it need not be overly elaborate or lengthy (Option C), as clarity and usability of the plan are more important than length. The results of the test sessions (Option D) are not included in the test plan but rather compiled afterward in a test report or analysis document.

Therefore, the correct statement is that the usability test plan contains a schedule, ensuring a structured timeline for the usability testing activities.

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.

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.

The described issue violates the usability heuristic “User control and freedom,” as defined by Jakob Nielsen. This principle emphasizes that users should have the ability to undo and redo actions and navigate freely without being trapped in irreversible sequences. In the scenario, users are forced into the checkout process without a clear way to return or correct mistakes, except through the unreliable and disruptive back button. This design flaw undermines user autonomy and can result in lost progress or frustration.