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

SUS (System Usability Scale), SUMI (Software Usability Measurement Inventory), and WAMMI (Website Analysis and Measurement Inventory) are all validated, standardized usability questionnaires that support benchmarking. They allow comparison against known usability scores from a wide variety of systems. These instruments provide numeric scores that can be interpreted using benchmark datasets or industry standards. Therefore, all three—i, ii, and iii—are true, making D the correct answer.

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.

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.

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 pilot usability test session is a critical step prior to conducting the actual usability test. Its purpose is to ensure that the test setup, task design, and moderator instructions are clear and function as expected. According to ISO 9241-210 and the Nielsen Norman Group's best practices, pilot testing helps detect unforeseen issues and fine-tune the process. Options A and B are incorrect because testing conditions must reflect realistic scenarios, and thorough preparation is essential to gather meaningful usability data. Option D is also incorrect; a usability test typically consists of multiple sessions with different users to gather sufficient data for analysis. The pilot session ensures everything works smoothly before involving real participants.

Positive usability findings play a key role in reinforcing what is working well in the user interface. They help:

A: Build developer confidence and soften criticism when pointing out issues.

C: Provide a complete picture of usability strengths and weaknesses.

D: Inform developers what should remain unchanged during redesign.

However, B is incorrect because justifying usability test costs should not rely solely on positive findings. Cost justification should come from the overall impact of usability on user satisfaction, performance, and business outcomes—not just good results.

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.

When actual users cannot be included, a usability review (often an expert or heuristic evaluation) is the most practical method. Trained evaluators examine the interface against usability principles and standards to identify potential issues. Surveys require user input, and usability testing cannot proceed without users. Accessibility evaluation targets inclusivity for users with impairments, which is related but not a substitute for overall usability evaluation. Therefore, option A is the only valid method under these constraints.

In usability evaluations, a distinction is made between actual usability problems (where a user struggles to complete a task or is confused by the interface) and suggestions or ideas that users provide based on their preferences or perceived improvements. When a participant offers a new feature idea (such as a quick search box), this is classified as a “good idea” or “feature suggestion,” not necessarily a usability problem. It may inform future design enhancements but does not indicate a failure in usability for existing functionality.

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.

Common mistakes in usability testing include:

Ignoring critical results (ii): A significant issue if findings are not acted upon.

Scheduling the test too late (iv): This can lead to usability problems being discovered too late to be addressed effectively.

Having the wrong focus (v): For instance, focusing on aesthetics instead of usability goals.

Option i ("user is too active") is not a problem—active participation is necessary. Option iii ("no observers involved") is not a typical mistake, since tests can still be valid even with recorded sessions and later review. Hence, the correct answer is A: ii, iv & v are true.

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.