Pass the iSQI Software Testing & Quality CTFL-UT Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

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.

To prevent usability testing from exceeding budget, active monitoring and control of project resources are critical. The best practice is to regularly check consumed time, costs, and effort against the original estimates, allowing timely adjustments to scope or resources. This is a classic quality control practice aligned with ISO 9001 principles and standard project management methodologies. Option A relates to test preparation, option C concerns reporting and communication, and option D applies after test execution. Only option B deals directly with budget control during the test.

Human-centered design, as defined by ISO 9241-210, emphasizes early user involvement, iterative design, and continuous usability evaluation. Option D aligns with this model as it begins with understanding user needs (interview users), proceeds through iterative prototyping (which allows for continuous improvement), and involves user evaluation. This ensures that the final product is shaped by real user input and feedback. Options A and B lack iteration and continuous evaluation, while option C, although partially aligned, lacks explicit user involvement in the evaluation process, focusing only on expert reviews.

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.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide standards to ensure websites are accessible to people with disabilities. They specifically address:

i. Text resizability (SC 1.4.4),

iii. Text alternatives for non-text content (SC 1.1.1),

iv. Keyboard accessibility (SC 2.1.1),

v. Device independence, which includes not relying solely on mouse input.

Visually appealing design (ii) is not an accessibility requirement and is thus not a WCAG focus. The correct answer is D: i, iii, iv & v are true; ii is false.

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.

The usability tester, often synonymous with the usability test moderator in practice, is primarily responsible for interacting directly with the test participants during the usability testing sessions. This role includes communicating with participants to guide them through test tasks, answering questions without leading responses, and ensuring the session runs smoothly. Effective communication is essential to facilitate participant comfort, elicit genuine user behaviors, and capture accurate usability data.

Performing the pre-session briefing (Option A) may be done by the usability tester but is often a shared responsibility or part of test facilitation protocols. Discussing findings (Option C) typically falls to analysts or usability experts after testing sessions are completed and data analyzed. Defining testing tasks (Option D) is usually done by test designers or analysts during test planning, not during the test execution.

Therefore, communicating with test participants during testing is a core, principal task of the usability tester role.

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.

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.

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.