Free and Premium ISTQB CT-UT Dumps Questions Answers

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.

The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a standardized, reliable tool used to measure perceived usability. It consists of 10 items with five response options (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). It is widely used due to its simplicity and effectiveness in providing a single score to reflect a user’s overall satisfaction with a system. Option A refers to ISO's definition of usability testing, B describes a task in usability testing, and D refers to a usability requirement, not SUS. Therefore, the correct description of SUS is option C.

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.

Common mistakes in usability testing include:

Ignoring critical results (ii): A significant issue if findings are not acted upon.

Scheduling the test too late (iv): This can lead to usability problems being discovered too late to be addressed effectively.

Having the wrong focus (v): For instance, focusing on aesthetics instead of usability goals.

Option i ("user is too active") is not a problem—active participation is necessary. Option iii ("no observers involved") is not a typical mistake, since tests can still be valid even with recorded sessions and later review. Hence, the correct answer is A: ii, iv & v are true.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The described issue violates the usability heuristic “User control and freedom,” as defined by Jakob Nielsen. This principle emphasizes that users should have the ability to undo and redo actions and navigate freely without being trapped in irreversible sequences. In the scenario, users are forced into the checkout process without a clear way to return or correct mistakes, except through the unreliable and disruptive back button. This design flaw undermines user autonomy and can result in lost progress or frustration.

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.

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.