Pass the Salesforce Salesforce Designers Plat-UX-101 Questions and answers with CertsForce

The correct answer is C. `slds--size-1-of-2`, which the uploaded study guide explicitly identifies as the class that does not follow the expected SLDS convention. SLDS uses a structured naming system derived from Block-Element-Modifier (BEM) conventions. Salesforce documentation describes a block as the primary component, an element as a constituent part represented with a double underscore, and a modifier as a variation or state.

Current Salesforce guidance is particularly relevant here. Modern SLDS notation uses the single underscore for modifier syntax. For example, `slds-avatar_circle` correctly represents the circular avatar variant. `slds-box` is itself a valid SLDS utility/component class. Salesforce also confirms that older double-dash modifier syntax has been deprecated in favor of the single-underscore convention. Option C is malformed because the separator appears immediately after the `slds` namespace: `slds--size-1-of-2`. Even historical sizing syntax would have been structured around the size class, such as `slds-size--1-of-2`, rather than `slds--size-1-of-2`. Modern notation uses forms such as `slds-size_1-of-2`. Therefore, C clearly violates the expected SLDS class structure.

Study Guide reference/topics: SLDS, BEM naming, CSS classes, modifiers, Lightning Web Components.

==================================

The correct answer is B. In-App Feedback, as stated in the uploaded UX Designer study guide.

The scenario contains three important requirements: feedback is needed at scale, from a specific set of users, and while those users are in the flow of their work. The study guide identifies In-App Feedback as the approach that best fits that combination.

Because the feedback mechanism appears within the application context, users can respond while the newly released feature and their interaction with it are still immediately relevant. This reduces the separation between the experience being evaluated and the moment when feedback is collected.

Option A, User Interviews, can provide detailed qualitative insight, but interviews are typically more resource-intensive and do not satisfy the at-scale requirement as directly.

Option C, Survey, can collect responses from many users, but the study-guide answer emphasizes gathering feedback directly within the working context rather than through a separate feedback channel.

The Discovery principle being tested is contextual research. When the objective is to understand a recently released feature from selected users while they are actively using the product, collecting feedback inside the experience preserves useful context and supports broader participation.

Study Guide reference/topics: In-App Feedback, contextual research, feedback at scale, feature evaluation, Discovery.

==================================

The correct answer is B. Distinguishable, matching the uploaded study guide. Within WCAG's Perceivable principle, the distinguishable guidance focuses on making visual and auditory content sufficiently separable so that users can perceive important information. For text, buttons, and other interface elements, adequate color contrast is one of the central implementation requirements.

Salesforce's accessibility guidance explains that ordinary text should maintain sufficient contrast against its background and notes additional WCAG 2.1 contrast requirements for visual information needed to identify user-interface components and states, including button and input boundaries. Consequently, when a UX Designer selects foreground text and button-background colors, contrast and distinguishability must be evaluated rather than relying only on aesthetic brand preferences.

Adaptable concerns presenting information in ways that can be transformed or interpreted through different structures or presentation modes without losing meaning. Navigable addresses the user's ability to locate content, move through interfaces, understand focus, and determine their position. Neither directly describes the color-contrast requirement posed by the scenario.

Therefore, the UX Designer must ensure text and button treatments remain visually distinguishable, particularly for users with low vision or reduced color perception.

Study Guide reference/topics: WCAG, accessibility, distinguishable content, color contrast, Experience Builder, UX Fundamentals.

==================================

The correct answer is A. Observing user behavior, as explicitly identified by the uploaded study guide.

Human-centered design begins with understanding the people for whom a product, service, or process is being designed. Observing actual user behavior allows designers to understand what users really do, including their workflows, difficulties, workarounds, and environmental constraints. This provides evidence that may not emerge if the team relies only on assumptions or internal business objectives.

Option B places company OKRs at the center of requirements definition. Business objectives are important constraints, but they do not substitute for understanding users when adopting a human-centered approach.

Option C places rapid prototyping before ideation. Prototyping is useful for making ideas tangible and testing them, but the team first needs to understand users and generate potential solutions.

The study-guide distinction is therefore between evidence about people and organization-centered or prematurely solution-centered activities. Observing users gives the organization direct insight into needs and behavior and helps ensure subsequent design decisions are grounded in real experiences rather than assumptions.

Study Guide reference/topics: Human-Centered Design, user observation, behavioral research, user needs.

==================================

The uploaded study guide identifies C. Work together on setting up UX indicators as the correct response.

The problem is fundamentally one of alignment: developers do not yet see the value produced by the proposed design changes. Establishing UX indicators collaboratively creates measurable criteria that both design and development teams can use to evaluate whether the changes improve the experience.

The emphasis on working together is important. Rather than asking developers to accept a design argument based purely on the designer's authority, both groups agree on evidence that can demonstrate improvement.

Option A relies on research notes from previous projects. Those findings may not directly correspond to the current problem, users, or implementation context.

Option B attempts to resolve resistance hierarchically by persuading a development lead and relying on that person to convince the rest of the team. That may secure compliance, but it does not create shared understanding of the UX objective.

The study-guide answer therefore favors a measurable and collaborative approach. UX indicators can turn subjective disagreement into a discussion around observable outcomes, helping multidisciplinary teams evaluate whether the design actually produces the intended improvement.

Study Guide reference/topics: UX indicators, design-development collaboration, measuring UX, stakeholder alignment, UX Fundamentals.

==================================

The correct answer is B. Bring together a cross-functional group with varied experiences, as explicitly keyed in the uploaded UX Designer study guide.

Consequence Scanning is represented in the guide as an activity strengthened by diverse perspectives. Bringing together people from different functional areas and with different experiences increases the likelihood that the group will identify consequences that a homogeneous team might overlook.

Option A focuses on organizational OKRs. Those objectives may inform product planning, but they are not the consideration selected by the guide for a Consequence Scanning workshop.

Option C places inclusivity examination after the product has already been built. That timing weakens the preventive value of the exercise. The study-guide framing treats consequence-oriented thinking as something that should influence design decisions rather than merely audit them after implementation.

A cross-functional workshop can expose different technical, business, user, operational, and social perspectives. This is particularly important when evaluating possible intended and unintended outcomes.

The main Human-Centered Design lesson is that responsible design analysis improves when teams deliberately include viewpoints beyond the immediate product or design group.

Study Guide reference/topics: Consequence Scanning, cross-functional collaboration, diverse perspectives, responsible design, Human-Centered Design.

==================================

The uploaded UX Designer study guide identifies B. Service-Blueprinting Workshop as the correct answer.

The scenario places Cloud Kicks after the research and synthesis stages. The team already understands the issues discovered through research and now needs a collaborative process for redesigning the service with stakeholders. A service-blueprinting workshop is therefore the appropriate next activity because it gives participants a structured way to examine how the service works across customer-facing interactions and the supporting processes behind those interactions.

The key distinction is that the team is no longer primarily trying to discover problems; it is using established findings to collaboratively shape an improved service.

Option A, Service Usability Testing, would be more appropriate when evaluating a proposed or existing service experience with users. Testing does not itself provide the collaborative service-redesign framework described in the question.

Option C, a Pitch Session, is primarily about presenting or advocating for an idea rather than jointly mapping and redesigning service delivery.

The guide therefore positions service blueprinting as the bridge between synthesized research and collaborative redesign.

Study Guide reference/topics: Service Blueprinting, collaborative design, service redesign, stakeholder participation, Human-Centered Design.

==================================

The correct answer is C. Expert Review, as explicitly identified in the uploaded study guide.

The key wording is that Cloud Kicks wants to independently audit the current website for possible usability issues. An Expert Review fits that purpose because a UX professional examines the existing interface and identifies usability concerns based on established UX knowledge and evaluation criteria.

Option A, Task Analysis, focuses on understanding the activities, steps, and requirements involved in users completing a task. It can be highly valuable during research, but it is not primarily an independent audit of an existing interface.

Option B, User Shadowing, is an observational research method in which designers observe users working in their real context. That requires direct user involvement and therefore does not match the request for an independent audit.

The distinction is between expert inspection and user research. Both can identify important problems, but the scenario specifically asks for a designer-led evaluation of the current site.

An Expert Review can therefore provide Cloud Kicks with an initial inventory of usability issues that can later inform redesign priorities and, where appropriate, further user testing.

Study Guide reference/topics: Expert Review, usability audit, Experience Cloud, evaluation methods, Testing.

==================================

The correct answer is C. Invite team members to observe usability sessions, as keyed in the uploaded study guide.

The problem is not that usability findings are unavailable; the Development team does not sufficiently value or accept them. Allowing developers to observe users directly provides first-hand evidence of where participants struggle, hesitate, misunderstand the interface, or encounter barriers.

Option A adds external best-practice articles to each finding. Those resources may support a recommendation, but they remain indirect evidence. They do not allow developers to witness actual users interacting with the team's product.

Option B focuses on how much effort the research team has invested. Research effort does not establish that a finding is valid or important. Acceptance should be based on user evidence rather than on the amount of work already spent collecting it.

The study guide therefore favors direct exposure to the research process. When team members observe usability sessions themselves, findings become less abstract and are harder to dismiss as merely the UX Designer's interpretation.

This also strengthens multidisciplinary ownership: usability becomes something the whole product team can observe and understand rather than a report delivered by one specialist group.

Study Guide reference/topics: Usability testing, observation, stakeholder buy-in, research acceptance, Testing.

==================================

The study guide identifies C. Components Library on developer.salesforce.com as the correct answer. The key requirement is to locate a centralized resource containing Lightning component code, documentation, and specifications so the implementation team can work efficiently. The Components Library is designed for that purpose: it gives designers and developers access to component references, supported attributes, implementation details, examples, and behavioral expectations. Option A, Salesforce Extensions for VS Code, is a development-tooling environment. It helps developers work with Salesforce metadata and code, but it is not the primary reference library for exploring Lightning component specifications. Option B, Design Tokens, provides reusable design values such as spacing, colors, and other design attributes. Tokens help maintain visual consistency, but they do not function as a comprehensive component reference. From a UX implementation perspective, using documented Lightning components reduces unnecessary custom development and helps ensure that components behave consistently with Salesforce interaction patterns. It also improves implementation speed because teams can begin with an established component rather than inventing a new one.

Study Guide reference/topics: Lightning Components, LWC implementation, component documentation, SLDS, reusable UI architecture.

==================================