CTFL-UT iSQI ISTQB Certified Tester-Foundation Level - Usability Testing Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Formative usability evaluation is conducted during the development process to identify usability problems and improve the product iteratively. It is diagnostic and improvement-focused. Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is done after development to assess the final product’s usability, measuring how well it meets defined usability goals. Therefore, the correct distinction is that formative evaluation focuses on improvement, and summative evaluation assesses the outcome. This distinction aligns with widely accepted models such as those defined by ISO 9241-210 and usability.gov.

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.

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.

To prevent usability testing from exceeding budget, active monitoring and control of project resources are critical. The best practice is to regularly check consumed time, costs, and effort against the original estimates, allowing timely adjustments to scope or resources. This is a classic quality control practice aligned with ISO 9001 principles and standard project management methodologies. Option A relates to test preparation, option C concerns reporting and communication, and option D applies after test execution. Only option B deals directly with budget control during the test.

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 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 System Usability Scale (SUS) is a standardized, reliable tool used to measure perceived usability. It consists of 10 items with five response options (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). It is widely used due to its simplicity and effectiveness in providing a single score to reflect a user’s overall satisfaction with a system. Option A refers to ISO's definition of usability testing, B describes a task in usability testing, and D refers to a usability requirement, not SUS. Therefore, the correct description of SUS is option C.

When a customer emphasizes the importance of accessibility, it means they are concerned with ensuring that users with disabilities or limitations are not excluded from using their products or services. Accessibility is about inclusiveness—providing equal access and opportunity to all users regardless of physical or cognitive ability. Option C directly reflects this understanding. The other options (A, B, and D) are aspects of usability or development methodologies but do not relate to addressing the needs of users with disabilities, which is the core focus of accessibility.

Option B represents a realistic, goal-oriented scenario that reflects how an actual user would interact with the website. It incorporates context, user intent, constraints, and desired outcome—all characteristics of well-designed usability tasks. Option A is vague and lacks real-world motivation. Option C is too prescriptive and limits insight into user behavior, while D is a survey question, not a usability task. According to Nielsen Norman Group and ISO 25062, the best usability tasks are scenario-based, realistic, and outcome-driven—making B the correct answer.

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.