CTFL-UT ISTQB Certified Tester-Foundation Level - Usability Testing Questions and Answers

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.

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.

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.

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.

Accessibility refers to designing products so that people with disabilities or limitations (permanent or temporary) can use them effectively. According to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and ISO standards, accessibility focuses on ensuring that users with vision, hearing, cognitive, or mobility impairments can access digital interfaces. Option D captures this intent accurately. The other options relate to general usability or responsiveness (e.g., device adaptability or user experience in noisy environments) but do not address the inclusive nature of accessibility as defined by official guidelines.

An informal usability review can be conducted by anyone, including stakeholders or developers, and does not require formal usability training or qualifications. It is typically subjective and based on general impressions. In contrast, an expert usability review (also called heuristic evaluation) is conducted by a trained usability expert who applies recognized usability principles. This is what differentiates the two approaches most clearly. Options A and C are misleading; expert reviews can be informal in format, and informal reviews aren't necessarily based solely on opinion. Option D is incorrect since both informal and expert reviews can be conducted individually or in groups.

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.

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.

A usability test participant is a person selected to represent the target user group and asked to perform specific tasks in a usability test. Their actions, reactions, and feedback help identify usability issues and evaluate the system’s effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. This role is strictly observational and does not involve organizing, observing, or setting up the test. Options A, B, and C describe other roles (e.g., technical support, observers, or moderators). Only option D accurately reflects the definition of a usability test participant.