CT-UT ISTQB Certified Tester Usability Tester Questions and Answers

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 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.

The Equality Act 2010 (UK) is legislation designed to protect individuals from discrimination in various areas, including employment and access to goods and services—this includes digital products like websites. While it does not directly mandate WCAG compliance levels (A or AA), it implies that digital services must be accessible to users with disabilities. Organizations are required to make "reasonable adjustments" to avoid discrimination. Therefore, the most accurate and comprehensive answer is B.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Usability labs provide a controlled environment that offers several advantages for observing and recording usability test sessions. Specifically, they allow for easy observation of participants (ii), standardized conditions for each session (iv), and facilitate audio and video recording for detailed analysis (v). However, the context is not natural (i), because the lab is an artificial setting rather than the user’s actual environment. Also, setting up a professional usability lab is not inexpensive (iii); it typically involves significant costs for equipment, space, and staffing. Therefore, options ii, iv, and v are true, while i and iii are false.

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.