Free Practice Questions for iSQI CTFL-UT Exam

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When actual users cannot be included, a usability review (often an expert or heuristic evaluation) is the most practical method. Trained evaluators examine the interface against usability principles and standards to identify potential issues. Surveys require user input, and usability testing cannot proceed without users. Accessibility evaluation targets inclusivity for users with impairments, which is related but not a substitute for overall usability evaluation. Therefore, option A is the only valid method under these constraints.

A usability test task is a clearly defined activity that a participant is asked to perform during a usability test session. These tasks are typically created by the test designer or moderator and are designed to reflect realistic user goals (e.g., “Find and buy a product”). The purpose is to observe the participant’s interaction with the system and identify usability issues. Option A describes a usability test script, not a task. Option C defines usability evaluation in general, and D refers to a session, not a specific task. Therefore, B is correct.

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.