Pass the ISTQB Usability Testing CT-UT Questions and answers with CertsForce

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 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.

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.

Usability is defined in ISO 9241-11 as the extent to which a system can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use. Without knowing the context—such as product complexity, user familiarity, device type, or purchasing habits—it is impossible to judge whether five minutes is good or bad. For complex items, five minutes may be reasonable, while for one-click purchases, it may be excessive. Thus, usability cannot be assessed solely based on one metric like time—it must be evaluated within its full usage context.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Usability reviews evaluate a system or interface against established usability principles or standards to identify potential issues before user testing. A recognized criterion for such reviews includes adherence to usability standards such as ISO 9241 or the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These standards are derived from years of research and user-centered design principles. Options A and C do not directly relate to usability. Functional requirements (option B) refer to what the system should do, not how usable it is. Hence, option D is correct as usability standards provide a consistent, objective basis for evaluating usability.

The human-centered design process emphasizes iterative development—testing and refining designs through multiple cycles. In the scenario, the project manager interviewed users and evaluated a prototype but did not iterate based on feedback. Skipping iteration likely resulted in unmet user needs. Human-centered design, per ISO 9241-210, includes: understanding context of use, specifying requirements, producing design solutions, and evaluating—repeated iteratively. Hence, option D (“iterate”) is correct.