CT-UT ISTQB Certified Tester Usability Tester Questions and Answers

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.

Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE) is a usability method in which usability issues are identified and addressed in short cycles. Unlike traditional usability testing, RITE allows for immediate redesigns and retesting of the improved version within the same study. The goal is to refine the design quickly based on observed usability issues. Option A confuses scheduling with methodology, B is too vague, and D inaccurately characterizes RITE as quantitative, while it is typically qualitative. Therefore, C accurately reflects the purpose and approach of RITE.

A usability requirement specifies how usable a product or component must be, often in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction, as defined in ISO 9241-11. These requirements ensure that the product meets specific human-centered design goals, such as allowing users to complete tasks accurately and quickly. Options A and C describe procedural or test setup elements, not actual usability requirements. Option B refers to personnel qualifications, which are not the same as usability requirements related to system behavior or performance.

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.

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.

Moderating the usability test is a core activity during the actual usability test session. The moderator guides participants through tasks, ensures the session stays on track, and avoids introducing bias. Option A (testing the setup) happens before the session, during preparation. Option C (extracting findings) occurs during analysis, after the test. Option D (talking during task execution) should be minimized unless necessary, to avoid influencing user behavior. Therefore, option B is the only correct answer aligned with best practices in usability testing.

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.

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.

Usability test reports are more effective when they are balanced and include not only problems but also what worked well. Including positive findings increases credibility, encourages the development team, and helps them understand what should remain unchanged. Option B violates privacy and ethical standards. Option C may dilute focus, and D could worsen the problem by making the report less accessible. Thus, the best practice supported by usability.gov and Nielsen Norman Group is to include both positive and negative findings.